{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40235/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40235","id":"gutenberg_40235","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40235","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Chronicles -- Commentaries","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"The Expositor\u2019s Bible\n\n                         The Books of Chronicles\n\n                                    By\n\n                          William Henry Bennett\n\n   Professor of Old Testament Languages and Literature, Mackney and New\n        Colleges; Sometime Fellow of St. John\u2019s College, Cambridge\n\n                            Hodder & Stoughton\n\n                                 New York\n\n                         George H, Doran Company\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPreface\nBook I. Introduction.\n   Chapter I. Date And Authorship.\n   Chapter II. Historical Setting.\n   Chapter III. Sources And Mode Of Composition.\n   Chapter IV. The Importance of Chronicles.\nBook II. Genealogies.\n   Chapter I. Names. 1 Chron. i-ix.\n   Chapter II. Heredity. 1 Chron. i.-ix.\n   Chapter III. Statistics.\n   Chapter IV. Family Traditions. 1 Chron. i. 10, 19, 46; ii. 3, 7, 34;\n   iv. 9, 10, 18, 22, 27, 34-43; v. 10, 18-22; vii. 21-23; viii. 13.\n   Chapter V. The Jewish Community In The Time Of The Chronicler.\n   Chapter VI. Teaching By Anachronism. 1 Chron. ix. (cf. xv., xvi.,\n   xxiii.-xxvii., etc.).\nBook III. Messianic And Other Types.\n   Chapter I. Teaching By Types.\n   Chapter II. David\u2014I. His Tribe And Dynasty.\n   Chapter III. David\u2014II. His Personal History.\n   Chapter IV. David\u2014III. His Official Dignity.\n   Chapter V. Solomon.\n   Chapter VI. Solomon (continued).\n   Chapter VII. The Wicked Kings. 2 Chron. xxviii., etc.\n   Chapter VIII. The Priests.\n   Chapter IX. The Prophets.\n   Chapter X. Satan. 1 Chron. xxi.-xxii. 1.\n   Chapter XI. Conclusion.\nBook IV. The Interpretation Of History.\n   Chapter I. The Last Prayer Of David. 1 Chron. xxix. 10-19.\n   Chapter II. Rehoboam And Abijah: The Importance Of Ritual. 2 Chron.\n   x.-xiii.\n   Chapter III. Asa: Divine Retribution. 2 Chron. xiv.-xvi.\n   Chapter IV. Jehoshaphat\u2014The Doctrine Of Non-Resistance. 2 Chron.\n   xvii.-xx.\n   Chapter V. Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah: The Consequences of a\n   Foreign Marriage. 2 Chron. xxi.-xxiii.\n   Chapter VI. Joash and Amaziah. 2 Chron. xxiv.-xxv.\n   Chapter VII. Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz. 2 Chron. xxvi.-xxviii.\n   Chapter VIII. Hezekiah: The Religious Value Of Music. 2 Chron.\n   xxix.-xxxii.\n   Chapter IX. Manasseh: Repentance And Forgiveness. 2 Chron. xxxiii.\n   Chapter X. The Last Kings Of Judah. 2 Chron. xxxiv.-xxxvi.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nTo expound Chronicles in a series which has dealt with Samuel, Kings,\nEzra, and Nehemiah is to glean scattered ears from a field already\nharvested. Sections common to Chronicles with the older histories have\ntherefore been treated as briefly as is consistent with preserving the\ncontinuity of the narrative. Moreover, an exposition of Chronicles does\nnot demand or warrant an attempt to write the history of Judah. To\nrecombine with Chronicles matter which its author deliberately omitted\nwould only obscure the characteristic teaching he intended to convey. On\nthe one hand, his selection of material has a religious significance,\nwhich must be ascertained by careful comparison with Samuel and Kings; on\nthe other hand, we can only do justice to the chronicler as we ourselves\nadopt, for the time being, his own attitude towards the history of Hebrew\npolitics, literature, and religion. In the more strictly expository parts\nof this volume I have sought to confine myself to the carrying out of\nthese principles.\n\nAmongst other obligations to friends, I must specially mention my\nindebtedness to the Rev. T. H. Darlow, M.A., for a careful reading of the\nproof-sheets and many very valuable suggestions.\n\nOne object I have had in view has been to attempt to show the fresh force\nand clearness with which modern methods of Biblical study have emphasised\nthe spiritual teaching of Chronicles.\n\n\n\n\n\nBOOK I. INTRODUCTION.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I. Date And Authorship.\n\n\nChronicles is a curious literary torso. A comparison with Ezra and\nNehemiah shows that the three originally formed a single whole. They are\nwritten in the same peculiar late Hebrew style; they use their sources in\nthe same mechanical way; they are all saturated with the ecclesiastical\nspirit; and their Church order and doctrine rest upon the complete\nPentateuch, and especially upon the Priestly Code. They take the same keen\ninterest in genealogies, statistics, building operations, Temple ritual,\npriests and Levites, and most of all in the Levitical doorkeepers and\nsingers. Ezra and Nehemiah form an obvious continuation of Chronicles; the\nlatter work breaks off in the middle of a paragraph intended to introduce\nthe account of the return from the Captivity; Ezra repeats the beginning\nof the paragraph and gives its conclusion. Similarly the register of the\nhigh-priests is begun in 1 Chron. vi. 4-15 and completed in Neh. xii. 10,\n11.\n\nWe may compare the whole work to the image in Daniel\u2019s vision whose head\nwas of fine gold, his breast and arms of silver, his belly and his thighs\nof brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Ezra\nand Nehemiah preserve some of the finest historical material in the Old\nTestament, and are our only authority for a most important crisis in the\nreligion of Israel. The torso that remains when these two books are\nremoved is of very mixed character, partly borrowed from the older\nhistorical books, partly taken down from late tradition, and partly\nconstructed according to the current philosophy of history.\n\nThe date(1) of this work lies somewhere between the conquest of the\nPersian empire by Alexander and the revolt of the Maccabees, _i.e._,\nbetween B.C. 332 and B.C. 166. The register in Neh. xii. 10, 11, closes\nwith Jaddua, the well-known high-priest of Alexander\u2019s time; the genealogy\nof the house of David in 1 Chron. iii. extends to about the same date, or,\naccording to the ancient versions, even down to about B.C. 200. The\necclesiastical system of the priestly code, established by Ezra and\nNehemiah B.C. 444, was of such old standing to the author of Chronicles\nthat he introduces it as a matter of course into his descriptions of the\nworship of the monarchy. Another feature which even more clearly indicates\na late date is the use of the term \u201cking of Persia\u201d instead of simply \u201cthe\nKing\u201d or \u201cthe Great King.\u201d The latter were the customary designations of\nthe Persian kings while the empire lasted; after its fall, the title\nneeded to be qualified by the name \u201cPersia.\u201d These facts, together with\nthe style and language, would be best accounted for by a date somewhere\nbetween B.C. 300 and B.C. 250. On the other hand, the Maccab\u00e6an struggle\nrevolutionised the national and ecclesiastical system which Chronicles\neverywhere takes for granted, and the silence of the author as to this\nrevolution is conclusive proof that he wrote before it began.\n\nThere is no evidence whatever as to the name of the author; but his\nintense interest in the Levites and in the musical service of the Temple,\nwith its orchestra and choir, renders it extremely probable that he was a\nLevite and a Temple-singer or musician. We might compare the Temple, with\nits extensive buildings and numerous priesthood, to an English cathedral\nestablishment, and the author of Chronicles to some vicar-choral, or,\nperhaps better, to the more dignified precentor. He would be enthusiastic\nover his music, a cleric of studious habits and scholarly tastes, not a\nman of the world, but absorbed in the affairs of the Temple, as a monk in\nthe life of his convent or a minor canon in the politics and society of\nthe minster close. The times were uncritical, and so our author was\noccasionally somewhat easy of belief as to the enormous magnitude of\nancient Hebrew armies and the splendour and wealth of ancient Hebrew\nkings; the narrow range of his interests and experience gave him an\nappetite for innocent gossip, professional or otherwise. But his sterling\nreligious character is shown by the earnest piety and serene faith which\npervade his work. If we venture to turn to English fiction for a rough\nillustration of the position and history of our chronicler, the name that\nat once suggests itself is that of Mr. Harding, the precentor in\n_Barchester Towers_. We must however remember that there is very little to\ndistinguish the chronicler from his later authorities; and the term\n\u201cchronicler\u201d is often used for \u201cthe chronicler or one of his\npredecessors.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nChapter II. Historical Setting.\n\n\nIn the previous chapter it has been necessary to deal with the chronicler\nas the author of the whole work of which Chronicles is only a part, and to\ngo over again ground already covered in the volume on Ezra and Nehemiah;\nbut from this point we can confine our attention to Chronicles and treat\nit as a separate book. Such a course is not merely justified, it is\nnecessitated, by the different relations of the chronicler to his subject\nin Ezra and Nehemiah on the one hand and in Chronicles on the other. In\nthe former case he is writing the history of the social and ecclesiastical\norder to which he himself belonged, but he is separated by a deep and wide\ngulf from the period of the kingdom of Judah. About three hundred years\nintervened between the chronicler and the death of the last king of Judah.\nA similar interval separates us from Queen Elizabeth; but the course of\nthese three centuries of English life has been an almost unbroken\ncontinuity compared with the changing fortunes of the Jewish people from\nthe fall of the monarchy to the early years of the Greek empire. This\ninterval included the Babylonian captivity and the return, the\nestablishment of the Law, the use of the Persian empire, and the conquests\nof Alexander.\n\nThe first three of these events were revolutions of supreme importance to\nthe internal development of Judaism; the last two rank in the history of\nthe world with the fall of the Roman empire and the French Revolution. Let\nus consider them briefly in detail. The Captivity, the rise of the Persian\nempire, and the Return are closely connected, and can only be treated as\nfeatures of one great social, political, and religious convulsion, an\nupheaval which broke the continuity of all the strata, of Eastern life and\nopened an impassable gulf between the old order and the new. For a time,\nmen who had lived through these revolutions were still able to carry\nacross this gulf the loosely twisted strands of memory, but when they died\nthe threads snapped; only here and there a lingering tradition\nsupplemented the written records. Hebrew slowly ceased to be the\nvernacular language, and was supplanted by Aramaic; the ancient history\nonly reached the people by means of an oral translation. Under this new\ndispensation the ideas of ancient Israel were no longer intelligible; its\ncircumstances could not be realised by those who lived under entirely\ndifferent conditions. Various causes contributed to bring about this\nchange. First, there was an interval of fifty years, during which\nJerusalem lay a heap of ruins. After the recapture of Rome by Totila the\nVisigoth in A.D. 546 the city was abandoned during forty days to desolate\nand dreary solitude. Even this temporary depopulation of the Eternal City\nis emphasised by historians as full of dramatic interest, but the fifty\nyears\u2019 desolation of Jerusalem involved important practical results. Most\nof the returning exiles must have either been born in Babylon or else have\nspent all their earliest years in exile. Very few can have been old enough\nto have grasped the meaning or drunk in the spirit of the older national\nlife. When the restored community set to work to rebuild their city and\ntheir temple, few of them had any adequate knowledge of the old Jerusalem,\nwith its manners, customs, and traditions. \u201cThe ancient men, that had seen\nthe first house, wept with a loud voice\u201d(2) when the foundation of the\nsecond Temple was laid before their eyes. In their critical and\ndisparaging attitude towards the new building, we may see an early trace\nof the tendency to glorify and idealise the monarchical period, which\nculminated in Chronicles. The breach with the past was widened by the\nnovel and striking surroundings of the exiles in Babylon. For the first\ntime since the Exodus, the Jews as a nation found themselves in close\ncontact and intimate relations with the culture of an ancient civilisation\nand the life of a great city.\n\nNearly a century and a half elapsed between the first captivity under\nJehoiachin (B.C. 598) and the mission of Ezra (B.C. 458); no doubt in the\nsucceeding period Jews still continued to return from Babylon to Jud\u00e6a,\nand thus the new community at Jerusalem, amongst whom the chronicler grew\nup, counted Babylonian Jews amongst their ancestors for two or even for\nmany generations. A Zulu tribe exhibited for a year in London could not\nreturn and build their kraal afresh and take up the old African life at\nthe point where they had left it. If a community of Russian Jews went to\ntheir old home after a few years\u2019 sojourn in Whitechapel, the old life\nresumed would be very different from what it was before their migration.\nNow the Babylonian Jews were neither uncivilised African savages nor\nstupefied Russian helots; they were not shut up in an exhibition or in a\nghetto; they settled in Babylon, not for a year or two, but for half a\ncentury or even a century; and they did not return to a population of\ntheir own race, living the old life, but to empty homes and a ruined city.\nThey had tasted the tree of new knowledge, and they could no more live and\nthink as their fathers had done than Adam and Eve could find their way\nback into paradise. A large and prosperous colony of Jews still remained\nat Babylon, and maintained close and constant relations with the\nsettlement in Jud\u00e6a. The influence of Babylon, begun during the Exile,\ncontinued permanently in this indirect form. Later still the Jews felt the\ninfluence of a great Greek city, through their colony at Alexandria.\n\nBesides these external changes, the Captivity was a period of important\nand many-sided development of Jewish literature and religion. Men had\nleisure to study the prophecies of Jeremiah and the legislation of\nDeuteronomy; their attention was claimed for Ezekiel\u2019s suggestions as to\nritual, and for the new theology, variously expounded by Ezekiel, the\nlater Isaiah, the book of Job, and the psalmists. The Deuteronomic school\nsystematised and interpreted the records of the national history. In its\nwealth of Divine revelation the period from Josiah to Ezra is only second\nto the apostolic age.\n\nThus the restored Jewish community was a new creation, baptised into a new\nspirit; the restored city was as much a new Jerusalem as that which St.\nJohn beheld descending out of heaven; and, in the words of the prophet of\nthe Restoration, the Jews returned to a \u201cnew heaven and a new earth.\u201d(3)\nThe rise of the Persian empire changed the whole international system of\nWestern Asia and Egypt. The robber monarchies of Nineveh and Babylon,\nwhose energies had been chiefly devoted to the systematic plunder of their\nneighbours, were replaced by a great empire, that stretched out one hand\nto Greece and the other to India. The organisation of this great empire\nwas the most successful attempt at government on a large scale that the\nworld had yet seen. Both through the Persians themselves and through their\ndealings with the Greeks, Aryan philosophy and religion began to leaven\nAsiatic thought; old things were passing away: all things were becoming\nnew.\n\nThe establishment of the Law by Ezra and Nehemiah was the triumph of a\nschool whose most important and effective work had been done at Babylon,\nthough not necessarily within the half-century specially called the\nCaptivity. Their triumph was retrospective: it not only established a\nrigid and elaborate system unknown to the monarchy, but, by identifying\nthis system with the law traditionally ascribed to Moses, it led men very\nwidely astray as to the ancient history of Israel. A later generation\nnaturally assumed that the good kings must have kept this law, and that\nthe sin of the bad kings was their failure to observe its ordinances.\n\nThe events of the century and a half or thereabouts between Ezra and the\nchronicler have only a minor importance for us. The change of language\nfrom Hebrew to Aramaic, the Samaritan schism, the few political incidents\nof which any account has survived, are all trivial compared to the\nliterature and history crowded into the century after the fall of the\nmonarchy. Even the far-reaching results of the conquests of Alexander do\nnot materially concern us here. Josephus indeed tells us that the Jews\nserved in large numbers in the Macedonian army, and gives a very dramatic\naccount of Alexander\u2019s visit to Jerusalem; but the historical value of\nthese stories is very doubtful, and in any case it is clear that between\nB.C. 333 and B.C. 250 Jerusalem was very little affected by Greek\ninfluences, and that, especially for the Temple community to which the\nchronicler belonged, the change from Darius to the Ptolemies was merely a\nchange from one foreign dominion to another.\n\nNor need much be said of the relation of the chronicler to the later\nJewish literature of the Apocalypses and Wisdom. If the spirit of this\nliterature were already stirring in some Jewish circles, the chronicler\nhimself was not moved by it. Ecclesiastes, as far as he could have\nunderstood it, would have pained and shocked him. But his work lay in that\ndirect line of subtle rabbinic teaching which, beginning with Ezra,\nreached its climax in the Talmud. Chronicles is really an anthology\ngleaned from ancient historic sources and supplemented by early specimens\nof Midrash and Hagada.\n\nIn order to understand the book of Chronicles, we have to keep two or\nthree simple facts constantly and clearly in mind. In the first place, the\nchronicler was separated from the monarchy by an aggregate of changes\nwhich involved a complete breach of continuity between the old and the new\norder: instead of a nation there was a Church; instead of a king there\nwere a high-priest and a foreign governor. Secondly, the effects of these\nchanges had been at work for two or three hundred years, effacing all\ntrustworthy recollection of the ancient order and schooling men to regard\nthe Levitical dispensation as their one original and antique\necclesiastical system. Lastly, the chronicler himself belonged to the\nTemple community, which was the very incarnation of the spirit of the new\norder. With such antecedents and surroundings, he set to work to revise\nthe national history recorded in Samuel and Kings. A monk in a Norman\nmonastery would have worked under similar but less serious disadvantages\nif he had undertaken to rewrite the _Ecclesiastical History_ of the\nVenerable Bede.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III. Sources And Mode Of Composition.\n\n\nOur impressions as to the sources of Chronicles are derived from the\ngeneral character of its contents, from a comparison with other books of\nthe Old Testament, and from the actual statements of Chronicles itself. To\ntake the last first: there are numerous references to authorities in\nChronicles which at first sight seem to indicate a dependence on rich and\nvaried sources. To begin with, there are \u201cThe Book of the Kings of Judah\nand Israel,\u201d(4) \u201cThe Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah,\u201d(5) and \u201cThe\nActs of the Kings of Israel.\u201d(6) These, however, are obviously different\nforms of the title of the same work.\n\nOther titles furnish us with an imposing array of prophetic authorities.\nThere are \u201cThe _Words_\u201d of Samuel the Seer(7), of Nathan the Prophet,(8)\nof Gad the Seer,(9) of Shemaiah the Prophet and of Iddo the Seer,(10) of\nJehu the son of Hanani,(11) and of the Seers(12); \u201cThe _Vision_\u201d of Iddo\nthe Seer(13) and of Isaiah the Prophet(14); \u201cThe _Midrash_\u201d of the Book of\nKings(15) and of the Prophet Iddo(16); \u201cThe _Acts_ of Uzziah,\u201d written by\nIsaiah the Prophet(17); and \u201cThe _Prophecy_\u201d of Ahijah the Shilonite.(18)\nThere are also less formal allusions to other works.\n\nFurther examination, however, soon discloses the fact that these prophetic\ntitles merely indicate different sections of \u201cThe Book of the Kings of\nIsrael and Judah.\u201d On turning to our book of Kings, we find that from\nRehoboam onwards each of the references in Chronicles corresponds to a\nreference by the book of Kings to the \u201cChronicles(19) of the Kings of\nJudah.\u201d In the case of Ahaziah, Athaliah, and Amon, the reference to an\nauthority is omitted both in the books of Kings and Chronicles. This close\ncorrespondence suggests that both our canonical books are referring to the\nsame authority or authorities. Kings refers to the \u201cChronicles of the\nKings of Judah\u201d for Judah, and to the \u201cChronicles of the Kings of Israel\u201d\nfor the northern kingdom; Chronicles, though only dealing with Judah,\ncombines these two titles in one: \u201cThe Book of the Kings of Israel and\nJudah.\u201d\n\nIn two instances Chronicles clearly states that its prophetic authorities\nwere found as sections of the larger work. \u201cThe Words of Jehu the son of\nHanani\u201d were \u201cinserted in the Book of the Kings of Israel,\u201d(20) and \u201cThe\nVision of Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz,\u201d is in the Book of the\nKings of Judah and Israel.(21) It is a natural inference that the other\n\u201cWords\u201d and \u201cVisions\u201d were also found as sections of this same \u201cBook of\nKings.\u201d\n\nThese conclusions may be illustrated and supported by what we know of the\narrangement of the contents of ancient books. Our convenient modern\nsubdivisions of chapter and verse did not exist, but the Jews were not\nwithout some means of indicating the particular section of a book to which\nthey wished to refer. Instead of numbers they used names, derived from the\nsubject of a section or from the most important person mentioned in it.\nFor the history of the monarchy the prophets were the most important\npersonages, and each section of the history is named after its leading\nprophet or prophets. This nomenclature naturally encouraged the belief\nthat the history had been originally written by these prophets. Instances\nof the use of such nomenclature are found in the New Testament, _e.g._,\nRom. xi. 2: \u201cWot ye not what the Scripture saith in Elijah\u201d(22)\u2014_i.e._, in\nthe section about Elijah\u2014and Mark xii. 26: \u201cHave ye not read in the book\nof Moses in the place concerning the bush?\u201d(23)\n\nWhile, however, most of the references to \u201cWords,\u201d \u201cVisions,\u201d etc., are to\nsections of the larger work, we need not at once conclude that _all_\nreferences to authorities in Chronicles are to this same book. The\ngenealogical register in 1 Chron. v. 17 and the \u201clamentations\u201d of 2 Chron.\nxxxv. 25 may very well be independent works. Having recognised the fact\nthat the numerous authorities referred to by Chronicles were for the most\npart contained in one comprehensive \u201cBook of Kings,\u201d a new problem\npresents itself: What are the respective relations of our Kings and\nChronicles to the \u201cChronicles\u201d and \u201cKings\u201d cited by them? What are the\nrelations of these original authorities to each other? What are the\nrelations of our Kings to our Chronicles? Our present nomenclature is\nabout as confusing as it well could be; and we are obliged to keep clearly\nin mind, first, that the \u201cChronicles\u201d mentioned in Kings is not our\nChronicles, and then that the \u201cKings\u201d referred to by Chronicles is not our\nKings. The first fact is obvious; the second is shown by the terms of the\nreferences, which state that information not furnished in Chronicles may\nbe found in the \u201cBook of Kings,\u201d but the information in question is often\nnot given in the canonical Kings.(24) And yet the connection between Kings\nand Chronicles is very close and extensive. A large amount of material\noccurs either identically or with very slight variations in both books. It\nis clear that either Chronicles uses Kings, or Chronicles uses a work\nwhich used Kings, or both Chronicles and Kings use the same source or\nsources. Each of these three views has been held by important authorities,\nand they are also capable of various combinations and modifications.\n\nReserving for a moment the view which specially commends itself to us, we\nmay note two main tendencies of opinion. First, it is maintained that\nChronicles either goes back directly to the actual sources of Kings,\nciting them, for the sake of brevity, under a combined title, or is based\nupon a combination of the main sources of Kings made at a very early date.\nIn either case Chronicles as compared with Kings would be an independent\nand parallel authority on the contents of these early sources, and to that\nextent would rank with Kings as first-class history. This view, however,\nis shown to be untenable by the numerous traces of a later age which are\nalmost invariably present wherever Chronicles supplements or modifies\nKings.\n\nThe second view is that either Chronicles used Kings, or that the \u201cBook of\nthe Kings of Israel and Judah\u201d used by Chronicles was a post-Exilic work,\nincorporating statistical matter and dealing with the history of the two\nkingdoms in a spirit congenial to the temper and interests of the restored\ncommunity. This \u201cpost-Exilic\u201d predecessor of Chronicles is supposed to\nhave been based upon Kings itself, or upon the sources of Kings, or upon\nboth; but in any case it was not much earlier than Chronicles and was\nwritten under the same influences and in a similar spirit. Being virtually\nan earlier edition of Chronicles, it could claim no higher authority, and\nwould scarcely deserve either recognition or treatment as a separate work.\nChronicles would still rest substantially on the authority of Kings.\n\nIt is possible to accept a somewhat simpler view, and to dispense with\nthis shadowy and ineffectual first edition of Chronicles. In the first\nplace, the chronicler does not appeal to the \u201cWords\u201d and \u201cVisions\u201d and the\nrest of his \u201cBook of Kings\u201d as authorities for his own statements; he\nmerely refers his reader to them for further information which he himself\ndoes not furnish. This \u201cBook of Kings\u201d so often mentioned is therefore\nneither a source nor an authority of Chronicles. There is nothing to prove\nthat the chronicler himself was actually acquainted with the book. Again,\nthe close correspondence already noted between these references in\nChronicles and the parallel notes in Kings suggests that the former are\nsimply expanded and modified from the latter, and the chronicler had never\nseen the book he referred to. The Books of Kings had stated where\nadditional information could be found, and Chronicles simply repeated the\nreference without verifying it. As some sections of Kings had come to be\nknown by the names of certain prophets, the chronicler transferred these\nnames back to the corresponding sections of the sources used by Kings. In\nthese cases he felt he could give his readers not merely the somewhat\nvague reference to the original work as a whole, but the more definite and\nconvenient citation of a particular paragraph. His descriptions of the\nadditional subjects dealt with in the original authority may possibly,\nlike other of his statements, have been constructed in accordance with his\nideas of what that authority should contain; or more probably they refer\nto this authority the floating traditions of later times and writers.\nPossibly these references and notes of Chronicles are copied from the\nglosses which some scribe had written in the margin of his copy of Kings.\nIf this be so, we can understand why we find references to the Midrash of\nIddo and the Midrash of the book of Kings.(25)\n\nIn any case, whether directly or through the medium of a preliminary\nedition, called \u201cThe Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah,\u201d our book of\nKings was used by the chronicler. The supposition that the original\nsources of Kings were used by the chronicler or this immediate predecessor\nis fairly supported both by evidence and authority, but on the whole it\nseems an unnecessary complication.\n\nThus we fail to find in these various references to the \u201cBook of Kings,\u201d\netc., any clear indication of the origin of matter peculiar to Chronicles;\nnevertheless it is not difficult to determine the nature of the sources\nfrom which this material was derived. Doubtless some of it was still\ncurrent in the form of oral tradition when the chronicler wrote, and owed\nto him its permanent record. Some he borrowed from manuscripts, which\nformed part of the scanty and fragmentary literature of the later period\nof the Restoration. His genealogies and statistics suggest the use of\npublic and ecclesiastical archives, as well as of family records, in which\nancient legend and anecdote lay embedded among lists of forgotten\nancestors. Apparently the chronicler harvested pretty freely from that\nliterary aftermath that sprang up when the Pentateuch and the earlier\nhistorical books had taken final shape.\n\nBut it is to these earlier books that the chronicler owes most. His work\nis very largely a mosaic of paragraphs and phrases taken from the older\nbooks. His chief sources are Samuel and Kings; he also lays the\nPentateuch, Joshua, and Ruth under contribution. Much is taken over\nwithout even verbal alteration, and the greater part is unaltered in\nsubstance; yet, as is the custom in ancient literature, no acknowledgment\nis made. The literary conscience was not yet aware of the sin of\nplagiarism. Indeed, neither an author nor his friends took any pains to\nsecure the permanent association of his name with his work, and no great\nguilt can attach to the plagiarism of one anonymous writer from another.\nThis absence of acknowledgment where the chronicler is plainly borrowing\nfrom elder scribes is another reason why his references to the \u201cBook of\nthe Kings of Israel and Judah\u201d are clearly not statements of sources to\nwhich he is indebted, but simply what they profess to be: indications of\nthe possible sources of further information.\n\nChronicles, however, illustrates ancient methods of historical\ncomposition, not only by its free appropriation of the actual form and\nsubstance of older works, but also by its curious blending of identical\nreproduction with large additions of quite heterogeneous matter, or with a\nseries of minute but significant alterations. The primitive ideas and\nclassical style of paragraphs from Samuel and Kings are broken in upon by\nthe ritualistic fervour and late Hebrew of the chronicler\u2019s additions. The\nvivid and picturesque narrative of the bringing of the Ark to Zion is\ninterpolated with uninteresting statistics of the names, numbers, and\nmusical instruments of the Levites.(26) Much of the chronicler\u2019s account\nof the revolution which overthrew Athaliah and placed Joash on the throne\nis taken word for word from the book of Kings; but it is adapted to the\nTemple order of the Pentateuch by a series of alterations which substitute\nLevites for foreign mercenaries, and otherwise guard the sanctity of the\nTemple from the intrusion, not only of foreigners, but even of the common\npeople.(27) A careful comparison of Chronicles with Samuel and Kings is a\nstriking object lesson in ancient historical composition. It is an almost\nindispensable introduction to the criticism of the Pentateuch and the\nolder historical books. The \u201credactor\u201d of these works becomes no mere\nshadowy and hypothetical personage when we have watched his successor the\nchronicler piecing together things new and old and adapting ancient\nnarratives to modern ideas by adding a word in one place and changing a\nphrase in another.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV. The Importance of Chronicles.\n\n\nBefore attempting to expound in detail the religious significance of\nChronicles, we may conclude our introduction by a brief general statement\nof the leading features which render the book interesting and valuable to\nthe Christian student.\n\nThe material of Chronicles may be divided into three parts: the matter\ntaken directly from the older historical books; material derived from\ntraditions and writings of the chronicler\u2019s own age; the various additions\nand modifications which are the chronicler\u2019s own work.(28) Each of these\ndivisions has its special value, and important lessons may be learnt from\nthe way in which the author has selected and combined these materials.\n\nThe excerpts from the older histories are, of course, by far the best\nmaterial in the book for the period of the monarchy. If Samuel and Kings\nhad perished, we should have been under great obligations to the\nchronicler for preserving to us large portions of their ancient records.\nAs it is, the chronicler has rendered invaluable service to the textual\ncriticism of the Old Testament by providing us with an additional witness\nto the text of large portions of Samuel and Kings. The very fact that the\ncharacter and history of Chronicles are so different from those of the\nolder books enhances the value of its evidence as to their text. The two\ntexts, Samuel and Kings on the one hand and Chronicles on the other, have\nbeen modified under different influences; they have not always been\naltered in the same way, so that where one has been corrupted the other\nhas often preserved the correct reading. Probably because Chronicles is\nless interesting and picturesque, its text has been subject to less\nalteration than that of Samuel and Kings. The more interested scribes or\nreaders become, the more likely they are to make corrections and add\nglosses to the narrative. We may note, for example, that the name\n\u201cMeribbaal\u201d given by Chronicles for one of Saul\u2019s sons is more likely to\nbe correct than \u201cMephibosheth,\u201d the form given by Samuel.(29)\n\nThe material derived from traditions and writings of the chronicler\u2019s own\nage is of uncertain historical value, and cannot be clearly discriminated\nfrom the author\u2019s free composition. Much of it was the natural product of\nthe thought and feeling of the late Persian and early Greek period, and\nshares the importance which attaches to the chronicler\u2019s own work. This\nmaterial, however, includes a certain amount of neutral matter:\ngenealogies, family histories and anecdotes, and notes on ancient life and\ncustom. We have no parallel authorities to test this material, we cannot\nprove the antiquity of the sources from which it is derived, and yet it\nmay contain fragments of very ancient tradition. Some of the notes and\nnarratives have an archaic flavour which can scarcely be artificial; their\nvery lack of importance is an argument for their authenticity, and\nillustrates the strange tenacity with which local and domestic tradition\nperpetuates the most insignificant episodes.(30)\n\nBut naturally the most characteristic, and therefore the most important,\nsection of the contents of Chronicles is that made up of the additions and\nmodifications which are the work of the chronicler or his immediate\npredecessors. It is unnecessary to point out that these do not add much to\nour knowledge of the history of the monarchy; their significance consists\nin the light that they throw upon the period towards whose close the\nchronicler lived: the period between the final establishment of\nPentateuchal Judaism and the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to stamp it\nout of existence; the period between Ezra and Judas Maccab\u00e6us. The\nchronicler is no exceptional and epoch-making writer, has little personal\nimportance, and is therefore all the more important as a typical\nrepresentative of the current ideas of his class and generation. He\ntranslates the history of the past into the ideas and circumstances of his\nown age, and thus gives us almost as much information about the civil and\nreligious institutions he lived under as if he had actually described\nthem. Moreover, in stating its estimate of past history, each generation\npronounces unconscious judgment upon itself. The chronicler\u2019s\ninterpretation and philosophy of history mark the level of his moral and\nspiritual ideas. He betrays these quite as much by his attitude towards\nearlier authorities as in the paragraphs which are his own composition; we\nhave seen how his use of materials illustrates the ancient, and for that\nmatter the modern, Eastern methods of historical composition, and we have\nshown the immense importance of Chronicles to Old Testament criticism. But\nthe way in which the chronicler uses his older sources also indicates his\nrelation towards the ancient morality, ritual, and theology of Israel. His\nmethods of selection are most instructive as to the ideas and interests of\nhis time. We see what was thought worthy to be included in this final and\nmost modern edition of the religious history of Israel. But in truth the\nomissions are among the most significant features of Chronicles; its\nsilence is constantly more eloquent than its speech, and we measure the\nspiritual progress of Judaism by the paragraphs of Kings which Chronicles\nleaves out. In subsequent chapters we shall seek to illustrate the various\nways in which Chronicles illuminates the period preceding the Maccabees.\nAny gleams of light on the Hebrew monarchy are most welcome, but we cannot\nbe less grateful for information about those obscure centuries which\nfostered the quiet growth of Israel\u2019s character and faith and prepared the\nway for the splendid heroism and religious devotion of the Maccab\u00e6an\nstruggle.\n\n\n\n\n\nBOOK II. GENEALOGIES.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I. Names. 1 Chron. i-ix.\n\n\nThe first nine chapters of Chronicles form, with a few slight exceptions,\na continuous list of names. It is the largest extant collection of Hebrew\nnames. Hence these chapters may be used as a text for the exposition of\nany spiritual significance to be derived from Hebrew names either\nindividually or collectively. Old Testament genealogies have often\nexercised the ingenuity of the preacher, and the student of homiletics\nwill readily recollect the methods of extracting a moral from what at\nfirst sight seems a barren theme. For instance, those names of which\nlittle or nothing is recorded are held up as awful examples of wasted\nlives. We are asked to take warning from Mahalalel and Methuselah, who\nspent their long centuries so ineffectually that there was nothing to\nrecord except that they begat sons and daughters and died. Such teaching\nis not fairly derived from its text. The sacred writers implied no\nreflection upon the Patriarchs of whom they gave so short and conventional\nan account. Least of all could such teaching be based upon the lists in\nChronicles, because the men who are there merely mentioned by name include\nAdam, Noah, Abraham, and other heroes of sacred story. Moreover, such\nteaching is unnecessary and not altogether wholesome. Very few men who are\nat all capable of obtaining a permanent place in history need to be\nspurred on by sermons; and for most people the suggestion that a man\u2019s\nlife is a failure unless he secures posthumous fame is false and\nmischievous. The Lamb\u2019s book of life is the only record of the vast\nmajority of honourable and useful lives; and the tendency to\nself-advertisement is sufficiently wide-spread and spontaneous already: it\nneeds no pulpit stimulus. We do not think any worse of a man because his\ntombstone simply states his name and age, or any better because it\ncatalogues his virtues and mentions that he attained the dignity of\nalderman or author.\n\nThe significance of these lists of names is rather to be looked for in an\nopposite direction. It is not that a name and one or two commonplace\nincidents mean so little, but that they suggest so much. A mere parish\nregister is not in itself attractive, but if we consider even such a list,\nthe very names interest us and kindle our imagination. It is almost\nimpossible to linger in a country churchyard, reading the half-effaced\ninscriptions upon the headstones, without forming some dim picture of the\ncharacter and history and even the outward semblance of the men and women\nwho once bore the names.\n\n\n    \u201cFor though a name is neither\n    ... hand, nor foot,\n    Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part\n    Belonging to a man,\u201d\n\n\nyet, to use a somewhat technical phrase, it _connotes_ a man. A name\nimplies the existence of a distinct personality, with a peculiar and\nunique history, and yet, on the other hand, a being with whom we are\nlinked in close sympathy by a thousand ties of common human nature and\neveryday experience. In its lists of what are now mere names, the Bible\nseems to recognise the dignity and sacredness of bare human life.\n\nBut the names in these nine chapters have also a collective significance:\nthey stand for more than their individual owners. They are typical and\nrepresentative, the names of kings, and priests, and captains; they sum up\nthe tribes of Israel, both as a Church and a nation, down all the\ngenerations of its history. The inclusion of these names in the sacred\nrecord, as the express introduction to the annals of the Temple, and the\nsacred city, and the elect house of David, is the formal recognition of\nthe sanctity of the nation and of national life. We are entirely in the\nspirit of the Bible when we see this same sanctity in all organised\nsocieties: in the parish, the municipality, and the state; when we attach\na Divine significance to registers of electors and census returns, and\nclaim all such lists as symbols of religious privilege and responsibility.\n\nBut names do not merely suggest individuals and communities: the meanings\nof the names reveal the ideas of the people who used them. It has been\nwell said that \u201cthe names of every nation are an important monument of\nnational spirit and manners, and thus the Hebrew names bear important\ntestimony to the peculiar vocation of this nation. No nation of antiquity\nhas such a proportion of names of religious import.\u201d(31) Amongst ourselves\nindeed the religious meaning of names has almost wholly faded away;\n\u201cChristian name\u201d is a mere phrase, and children are named after relations,\nor according to prevailing fashion, or after the characters of popular\nnovels. But the religious motive can still be traced in some modern names;\nin certain districts of Germany the name \u201cUrsula\u201d or \u201cApollonia\u201d is a sure\nindication that a girl is a Roman Catholic and has been named after a\npopular saint.(32) The Bible constantly insists upon this religious\nsignificance, which would frequently be in the mind of the devout\nIsraelite in giving names to his children. The Old Testament contains more\nthan a hundred etymologies(33) of personal names, most of which attach a\nreligious meaning to the words explained. The etymologies of the\npatriarchal names\u2014\u201cAbraham,\u201d father of a multitude of nations; \u201cIsaac,\u201d\nlaughter; \u201cJacob,\u201d supplanter; \u201cIsrael,\u201d prince with God\u2014are specially\nfamiliar. The Biblical interest in edifying etymologies was maintained and\ndeveloped by early commentators. Their philology was far from accurate,\nand very often they were merely playing upon the forms of words. But the\nallegorising tendencies of Jewish and Christian expositors found special\nopportunities in proper names. On the narrow foundation of an etymology\nmostly doubtful and often impossible, Philo, and Origen, and Jerome loved\nto erect an elaborate structure theological or philosophical doctrine.\nPhilo has only one quotation from our author: \u201cManasseh had sons, whom his\nSyrian concubine bare to him, Machir; and Machir begat Gilead.\u201d(34) He\nquotes this verse to show that recollection is associated in a subordinate\ncapacity with memory. The connection is not very clearly made out, but\nrests in some way on the meaning of Manasseh, the root of which means to\nforget. As forgetfulness with recollection restores our knowledge, so\nManasseh with his Syrian concubine begets Machir. Recollection therefore\nis a concubine, an inferior and secondary quality.(35) This ingenious\ntrifling has a certain charm in spite of its extravagance, but in less\ndexterous hands the method becomes clumsy as well as extravagant. It has,\nhowever, the advantage of readily adapting itself to all tastes and\nopinions, so that we are not surprised when an eighteenth-century author\ndiscovers in Old Testament etymology a compendium of Trinitarian\ntheology.(36) _Ahiah_(37) is derived from _\u2019ehad_, one, and _yah_,\nJehovah, and is thus an assertion of the Divine unity; _Reuel_(38) is\nresolved into a plural verb with a singular Divine name for its subject:\nthis is an indication of trinity in unity; _Ahilud_(39) is derived from\n_\u2019ehad_, one, and _galud_, begotten, and signifies that the Son is\n_only-begotten_.\n\nModern scholarship is more rational in its methods, but attaches no less\nimportance to these ancient names, and finds in them weighty evidence on\nproblems of criticism and theology; and before proceeding to more serious\nmatters, we may note a few somewhat exceptional names. As pointed in the\npresent Hebrew text, _Hazarmaveth_(40) and _Azmaveth_(41) have a certain\ngrim suggestiveness. _Hazarmaveth_, court of death, is given as the name\nof a descendant of Shem. It is, however, probably the name of a place\ntransferred to an eponymous ancestor, and has been identified with\n_Hadramawt_, a district in the south of Arabia. As, however, _Hadramawt_,\nis a fertile district of Arabia Felix, the name does not seem very\nappropriate. On the other hand _Azmaveth_, \u201cstrength of death,\u201d would be\nvery suitable for some strong, death-dealing soldier. _Azubah_,(42)\n\u201cforsaken,\u201d the name of Caleb\u2019s wife, is capable of a variety of romantic\nexplanations. _Hazelelponi_(43) is remarkable in its mere form; and\nEwald\u2019s interpretation, \u201cGive shade, Thou who turnest to me Thy\ncountenance,\u201d seems rather a cumbrous signification for the name of a\ndaughter of the house of Judah. _Jushab-hesed_,(44) \u201cMercy will be\nrenewed,\u201d as the name of a son of Zerubbabel, doubtless expresses the\ngratitude and hope of the Jews on their return from Babylon.(45)\n_Jashubi-lehem_,(46) however, is curious and perplexing. The name has been\ninterpreted \u201cgiving bread\u201d or \u201cturning back to Bethlehem,\u201d but the text is\ncertainly corrupt, and the passage is one of many into which either the\ncarelessness of scribes or the obscurity of the chronicler\u2019s sources has\nintroduced hopeless confusion. But the most remarkable set of names is\nfound in 1 Chron. xxv. 4, where _Giddalti_ and _Romantiezer_,\n_Joshbekashah_, _Mallothi_, _Hothir_, _Mahazioth_, are simply a Hebrew\nsentence meaning, \u201cI have magnified and exalted help; sitting in\ndistress,(47) I have spoken(48) visions in abundance.\u201d We may at once set\naside the cynical suggestion that the author lacked names to complete a\ngenealogy and, to save the trouble of inventing them separately, took the\nfirst sentence that came to hand and cut it up into suitable lengths, nor\nis it likely that a father would spread the same process over several\nyears and adopt it for his family. This remarkable combination of names is\nprobably due to some misunderstanding of his sources on the part of the\nchronicler. His parchment rolls must often have been torn and fragmentary,\nthe writing blurred and half illegible; and his attempts to piece together\nobscure and ragged manuscripts naturally resulted at times in mistakes and\nconfusion.\n\nThese examples of interesting etymologies might easily be multiplied; they\nserve, at any rate, to indicate a rich mine of suggestive teaching. It\nmust, however, be remembered that a name is not necessarily a personal\nname because it occurs in a genealogy; cities, districts, and tribes\nmingle freely with persons in these lists. In the same connection we note\nthat the female names are few and far between, and that of those which do\noccur the \u201csisters\u201d probably stand for allied and related families, and\nnot for individuals.\n\nAs regards Old Testament theology, we may first notice the light thrown by\npersonal names on the relation of the religion of Israel to that of other\nSemitic peoples. Of the names in these chapters and elsewhere, a large\nproportion are compounded of one or other of the Divine names. _El_ is the\nfirst element in _Elishama_, _Eliphelet_, _Eliada_, etc.; it is the second\nin _Othniel_, _Jehaleleel_, _Asareel_, etc. Similarly _Jehovah_ is\nrepresented by the initial _Jeho-_ in _Jehoshaphat_, _Jehoiakim_,\n_Jehoram_, etc., by the final _-iah_ in _Amaziah_, _Azariah_, _Hezekiah_,\netc. It has been calculated that there are a hundred and ninety names(49)\nbeginning or ending with the equivalent of Jehovah, including most of the\nkings of Judah and many of the kings of Israel. Moreover, some names which\nhave not these prefixes and affixes in their extant form are contractions\nof older forms which began or ended with a Divine name. Ahaz, for\ninstance, is mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions as Jahuhazi\u2014_i.e._,\nJehoahaz\u2014and Nathan is probably a contracted form of Nethaniah.\n\nThere are also numerous compounds of other Divine names. _Zur_, rock, is\nfound in _Pedahzur_,(50) _Shaddai_, A.V. Almighty, in _Ammishaddai_(51);\nthe two are combined in _Zurishaddai_.(52) _Melech_ is a Divine name in\n_Malchi-ram_ and _Malchi-shua_. _Baal_ occurs as a Divine name in\n_Eshbaal_ and _Meribbaal_. _Abi_, father, is a Divine name in _Abiram_,\n_Abinadab_, etc., and probably also _Ahi_ in _Ahiram_ and _Ammi_ in\n_Amminadab_.(53) Possibly, too, the apparently simple names _Melech_,\n_Zur_, _Baal_, are contractions of longer forms in which these Divine\nnames were prefixes or affixes.\n\nThis use of Divine names is capable of very varied illustration. Modern\nlanguages have Christian and Christopher, Emmanuel, Theodosius, Theodora,\netc.; names like Hermogenes and Heliogabalus are found in the classical\nlanguages. But the practice is specially characteristic of Semitic\nlanguages. Mohammedan princes are still called _Abdurrahman_, servant of\nthe Merciful, and _Abdallah_, servant of God; ancient Ph\u0153nician kings were\nnamed _Ethbaal_ and _Abdalonim_, where _alonim_ is a plural Divine name,\nand the _bal_ in Hannibal and Hasdrubal = _baal_. The Assyrian and\nChald\u00e6an kings were named after the gods Sin, Nebo, Assur, Merodach,\n_e.g._, _Sin-akki-irib_ (Sennacherib); _Nebuchadnezzar_; _Assur-bani-pal_;\n_Merodach-baladan_.\n\nOf these Divine names El and Baal are common to Israel and other Semitic\npeoples, and it has been held that the Hebrew personal names preserve\ntraces of polytheism. In any case, however, the Baal-names are\ncomparatively few, and do not necessarily indicate that Israelites\nworshipped a Baal distinct from Jehovah; they may be relics of a time when\nBaal (Lord) was a title or equivalent of Jehovah, like the later Adonai.\nOther possible traces of polytheism are few and doubtful. In Baanah and\nResheph we may perhaps find the obscure(54) Ph\u0153nician deities Anath and\nReshaph. On the whole, Hebrew names as compared, for instance, with\nAssyrian afford little or no evidence of the prevalence of polytheism.\n\nAnother question concerns the origin and use of the name Jehovah. Our\nlists conclusively prove its free use during the monarchy and its\nexistence under the judges. On the other hand, its apparent presence in\nJochebed, the name of the mother of Moses, seems to carry it back beyond\nMoses. Possibly it was a Divine name peculiar to his family or clan. Its\noccurrence in _Yahubidi_, a king of Hamath, in the time of Sargon may be\ndue to direct Israelite influence. Hamath had frequent relations with\nIsrael and Judah.\n\nTurning to matters of practical religion, how far do these names help us\nto understand the spiritual life of ancient Israel? The Israelites made\nconstant use of El and Jehovah in their names, and we have no parallel\npractice. Were they then so much more religious than we are? Probably in a\nsense they were. It is true that the etymology and even the original\nsignificance of a name in common use are for all practical purposes\nquickly and entirely forgotten. A man may go through a life-time bearing\nthe name of Christopher and never know its etymological meaning. At\nCambridge and Oxford sacred names like \u201cJesus\u201d and \u201cTrinity\u201d are used\nconstantly and familiarly without suggesting anything beyond the colleges\nso called. The edifying phrase, \u201cGod encompasseth us,\u201d is altogether lost\nin the grotesque tavern sign \u201cThe Goat and Compasses.\u201d Nor can we suppose\nthat the Israelite or the Assyrian often dwelt on the religious\nsignificance of the _Jeho-_ or _-iah_, the _Nebo_, _Sin_, or _Merodach_,\nof current proper names. As we have seen, the sense of _-iah_, _-el_, or\n_Jeho-_ was often so little present to men\u2019s minds that contractions were\nformed by omitting them. Possibly because these prefixes and affixes were\nso common, they came to be taken for granted; it was scarcely necessary to\nwrite them, because in any case they would be understood. Probably in\nhistoric times _Abi-_, _Ahi-_, and _Ammi-_ were no longer recognised as\nDivine names or titles; and yet the names which could still be recognised\nas compounded of El and Jehovah must have had their influence on popular\nfeeling. They were part of the religiousness, so to speak, of the ancient\nEast; they symbolised the constant intertwining of religious acts, and\nwords, and thoughts with all the concerns of life. The quality of this\nancient religion was very inferior to that of a devout and intelligent\nmodern Christian; it was perhaps inferior to that of Russian peasants\nbelonging to the Greek Church; but ancient religion pervaded life and\nsociety more consciously than modern Christianity does; it touched all\nclasses and occasions more directly, if also more mechanically. And,\nagain, these names were not the fossil relics of obsolete habits of\nthought and feeling, like the names of our churches and colleges; they\nwere the memorials of comparatively recent acts of faith. The name\n\u201cElijah\u201d commemorated the solemn occasion on which a father professed his\nown faith and consecrated a new-born child to the true God by naming his\nboy \u201cJehovah is my God.\u201d This name-giving was also a prayer: the child was\nplaced under the protection of the deity whose name it bore. The practice\nmight be tainted with superstition; the name would often be regarded as a\nkind of amulet; and yet we may believe that it could also serve to express\na parent\u2019s earnest and simple-minded faith. Modern Englishmen have\ndeveloped a habit of almost complete reticence and reserve on religious\nmatters, and this habit is illustrated by our choice of proper names.\nMary, and Thomas, and James are so familiar that their Scriptural origin\nis forgotten, and therefore they are tolerated; but the use of\ndistinctively Scriptural Christian names is virtually regarded as bad\ntaste. This reticence is not merely due to increased delicacy of spiritual\nfeeling: it is partly the result of the growth of science and of literary\nand historical criticism. We have become absorbed in the wonderful\nrevelations of methods and processes; we are fascinated by the ingenious\nmechanism of nature and society. We have no leisure to detach our thoughts\nfrom the machinery and carry them further on to its Maker and Director.\nIndeed, because there is so much mechanism and because it is so wonderful,\nwe are sometimes asked to believe that the machine made itself. But this\nis a mere phase in the religious growth of mankind: humanity will tire of\nsome of its new toys, and will become familiar with the rest; deeper needs\nand instincts will reassert themselves; and men will find themselves\nnearer in sentiment than they supposed to the ancient people who named\ntheir children after their God. In this and other matters the East to-day\nis the same as of old; the permanence of its custom is no inapt symbol of\nthe permanence of Divine truth, which revolution and conquest are\npowerless to change.\n\n\n    \u201cThe East bowed low before the blast\n      In patient, deep disdain;\n    She let the legions thunder past,\n      And plunged in thought again.\u201d\n\n\nBut the Christian Church is mistress of a more compelling magic than even\nEastern patience and tenacity: out of the storms that threaten her, she\ndraws new energies for service, and learns a more expressive language in\nwhich to declare the glory of God.\n\nLet us glance for a moment at the meanings of the group of Divine names\ngiven above. We have said that, in addition to _Melech_ in _Malchi-_,\n_Abi_, _Ahi_, and _Ammi_ are to be regarded as Divine names. One reason\nfor this is that their use as prefixes is strictly analogous to that of\n_El_ and _Jeho-_. We have _Abijah_ and _Ahijah_ as well as _Elijah_,\n_Abiel_ and _Ammiel_ as well as _Eliel_, _Abiram_ and _Ahiram_ as well as\n_Jehoram_; _Ammishaddai_ compares with _Zurishaddai_, and _Ammizabad_ with\n_Jehozabad_, nor would it be difficult to add many other examples. If this\nview be correct, _Ammi_ will have nothing to do with the Hebrew word for\n\u201cpeople,\u201d but will rather be connected with the corresponding Arabic word\nfor \u201cuncle.\u201d(55) As the use of such terms as \u201cbrother\u201d and \u201cuncle\u201d for\nDivine names is not consonant with Hebrew theology in its historic period,\nthe names which contain these prefixes must have come down from earlier\nages, and were used in later times without any consciousness of their\noriginal sense. Probably they were explained by new etymologies more in\nharmony with the spirit of the times; compare the etymology \u201cfather of a\nmultitude of nations\u201d given to Abraham. Even _Abi-_, father, in the early\ntimes to which its use as a prefix must be referred, cannot have had the\nfull spiritual meaning which now attaches to it as a Divine title. It\nprobably only signified the ultimate source of life. The disappearance of\nthese religious terms from the common vocabulary and their use in names\nlong after their significance had been forgotten are ordinary phenomena in\nthe development of language and religion. How many of the millions who use\nour English names for the days of the week ever give a thought to Thor or\nFreya? Such phenomena have more than an antiquarian interest. They remind\nus that religious terms, and phrases, and formul\u00e6 derive their influence\nand value from their adaptation to the age which accepts them; and\ntherefore many of them will become unintelligible or even misleading to\nlater generations. Language varies continuously, circumstances change,\nexperience widens, and every age has a right to demand that Divine truth\nshall be presented in the words and metaphors that give it the clearest\nand most forcible expression. Many of the simple truths that are most\nessential to salvation admit of being stated once for all; but dogmatic\ntheology fossilises fast, and the bread of one generation may become a\nstone to the next.\n\nThe history of these names illustrates yet another phenomenon. In some\nnarrow and imperfect sense the early Semitic peoples seem to have called\nGod \u201cFather\u201d and \u201cBrother.\u201d Because the terms were limited to a narrow\nsense, the Israelites grew to a level of religious truth at which they\ncould no longer use them; but as they made yet further progress they came\nto know more of what was meant by fatherhood and brotherhood, and gained\nalso a deeper knowledge of God. At length the Church resumed these ancient\nSemitic terms; and Christians call God \u201cAbba, Father,\u201d and speak of the\nEternal Son as their elder Brother. And thus sometimes, but not always, an\nantique phrase may for a time seem unsuitable and misleading, and then\nagain may prove to be the best expression for the newest and fullest\ntruth. Our criticism of a religious formula may simply reveal our failure\nto grasp the wealth of meaning which its words and symbols can contain.\n\nTurning from these obsolete names to those in common use\u2014_El_; _Jehovah_;\n_Shaddai_; _Zur_; _Melech_\u2014probably the prevailing idea popularly\nassociated with them all was that of strength: _El_, strength in the\nabstract; _Jehovah_, strength shown in permanence and independence;\n_Shaddai_, the strength that causes terror, the Almighty from whom cometh\ndestruction(56); _Zur_, rock, the material symbol of strength, _Melech_,\nking, the possessor of authority. In early times the first and most\nessential attribute of Deity is power, but with this idea of strength a\ncertain attribute of beneficence is soon associated. The strong God is the\nAlly of His people; His permanence is the guarantee of their national\nexistence; He destroys their enemies. The rock is a place of refuge; and,\nagain, Jehovah\u2019s people may rejoice in the shadow of a great rock in a\nweary land. The King leads them to battle, and gives them their enemies\nfor a spoil.\n\nWe must not, however, suppose that pious Israelites would consciously and\nsystematically discriminate between these names, any more than ordinary\nChristians do between God, Lord, Father, Christ, Saviour, Jesus. Their\nusage would be governed by changing currents of sentiment very difficult\nto understand and explain after the lapse of thousands of years. In the\nyear A.D. 3000, for instance, it will be difficult for the historian of\ndogmatics to explain accurately why some nineteenth-century Christians\npreferred to speak of \u201cdear Jesus\u201d and others of \u201cthe Christ.\u201d\n\nBut the simple Divine names reveal comparatively little; much more may be\nlearnt from the numerous compounds they help to form. Some of the more\ncurious have already been noticed, but the real significance of this\nnomenclature is to be looked for in the more ordinary and natural names.\nHere, as before, we can only select from the long and varied list. Let us\ntake some of the favourite names and some of the roots most often used,\nalmost always, be it remembered, in combination with Divine names. The\ndifferent varieties of these sacred names rendered it possible to\nconstruct various personal names embodying the same idea. Also the same\nDivine name might be used either as prefix or affix. For instance, the\nidea that \u201cGod knows\u201d is equally well expressed in the names _Eliada_\n(El-yada\u2019), _Jediael_ (Yada\u2019-el), _Jehoiada_ (Jeho-yada\u2019), and _Jedaiah_\n(Yada\u2019-yah). \u201cGod remembers\u201d is expressed alike by _Zachariah_ and\n_Jozachar_; \u201cGod hears\u201d by _Elishama_ (El-shama\u2019), _Samuel_ (if for\nShama\u2019-el), _Ishmael_ (also from Shama\u2019-el), _Shemaiah_, and _Ishmaiah_\n(_both from_ Shama\u2019 _and_ Yah); \u201cGod gives\u201d by _Elnathan_, _Nethaneel_,\n_Jonathan_, and _Nethaniah_; \u201cGod helps\u201d by _Eliezer_, _Azareel_,\n_Joezer_, and _Azariah_; \u201cGod is gracious\u201d by _Elhanan_, _Hananeel_,\n_Johanan_, _Hananiah_, _Baal-hanan_, and, for a Carthaginian, _Hannibal_,\ngiving us a curious connection between the Apostle of love, John\n(Johanan), and the deadly enemy of Rome.\n\nThe way in which the changes are rung upon these ideas shows how the\nancient Israelites loved to dwell upon them. Nestle reckons that in the\nOld Testament sixty-one persons have names formed from the root _nathan_,\nto give; fifty-seven from _shama_, to hear; fifty-six from _\u2019azar_, to\nhelp; forty-five from _hanan_, to be gracious; forty-four from _zakhar_,\nto remember. Many persons, too, bear names from the root _yada\u2019_, to know.\nThe favourite name is _Zechariah_, which is borne by twenty-five different\npersons.\n\nHence, according to the testimony of names, the Israelites\u2019 favourite\nideas about God were that He heard, and knew, and remembered; that He was\ngracious, and helped men, and gave them gifts: but they loved best to\nthink of Him as God the Giver. Their nomenclature recognises many other\nattributes, but these take the first place. The value of this testimony is\nenhanced by its utter unconsciousness and naturalness; it brings us nearer\nto the average man in his religious moments than any psalm or prophetic\nutterance. Men\u2019s chief interest in God was as the Giver. The idea has\nproved very permanent; St. James amplifies it: God is the Giver of every\ngood and perfect gift. It lies latent in names: Theodosius, Theodore,\nTheodora, and Dorothea. The other favourite ideas are all related to this.\nGod hears men\u2019s prayers, and knows their needs, and remembers them; He is\ngracious, and helps them by His gifts. Could anything be more pathetic\nthan this artless self-revelation? Men\u2019s minds have little leisure for sin\nand salvation; they are kept down by the constant necessity of preserving\nand providing for a bare existence. Their cry to God is like the prayer of\nJacob, \u201cIf Thou wilt give me bread to eat and raiment to put on!\u201d The very\nconfidence and gratitude that the names express imply periods of doubt and\nfear, when they said, \u201cCan God prepare a table in the wilderness?\u201d times\nwhen it seemed to them impossible that God could have heard their prayer\nor that He knew their misery, else why was there no deliverance? Had God\nforgotten to be gracious? Did He indeed remember? The names come to us as\nanswers of faith to these suggestions of despair.\n\nPossibly these old-world saints were not more preoccupied with their\nmaterial needs than most modern Christians. Perhaps it is necessary to\nbelieve in a God who rules on earth before we can understand the Father\nwho is in heaven. Does a man really trust in God for eternal life if he\ncannot trust Him for daily bread? But in any case these names provide us\nwith very comprehensive formul\u00e6, which we are at liberty to apply as\nfreely as we please: the God who knows, and hears, and remembers, who is\ngracious, and helps men, and gives them gifts. To begin with, note how in\na great array of Old Testament names God is the Subject, Actor, and\nWorker; the supreme facts of life are God and God\u2019s doings, not man and\nman\u2019s doings, what God is to man, not what man is to God. This is a\nforeshadowing of the Christian doctrines of grace and of the Divine\nsovereignty. And again we are left to fill in the objects of the sentences\nfor ourselves: God hears, and remembers, and gives\u2014what? All that we have\nto say to Him and all that we are capable of receiving from Him.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II. Heredity. 1 Chron. i.-ix.\n\n\nIt has been said that Religion is the great discoverer of truth, while\nScience follows her slowly and after a long interval. Heredity, so much\ndiscussed just now, is sometimes treated as if its principles were a great\ndiscovery of the present century. Popular science is apt to ignore history\nand to mistake a fresh nomenclature for an entirely new system of truth,\nand yet the immense and far-reaching importance of heredity has been one\nof the commonplaces of thought ever since history began. Science has been\nanticipated, not merely by religious feeling, but by a universal instinct.\nIn the old world political and social systems have been based upon the\nrecognition of the principle of heredity, and religion has sanctioned such\nrecognition. Caste in India is a religious even more than a social\ninstitution; and we use the term figuratively in reference to ancient and\nmodern life, even when the institution has not formally existed. Without\nthe aid of definite civil or religious law the force of sentiment and\ncircumstances suffices to establish an informal system of caste. Thus the\nfeudal aristocracy and guilds of the Middle Ages were not without their\nrough counterparts in the Old Testament. Moreover, the local divisions of\nthe Hebrew kingdoms corresponded in theory, at any rate, to blood\nrelationships; and the tribe, the clan, and the family had even more\nfixity and importance than now belong to the parish or the municipality. A\nman\u2019s family history or genealogy was the ruling factor in determining his\nhome, his occupation, and his social position. In the chronicler\u2019s time\nthis was especially the case with the official ministers of religion, the\nTemple establishment to which he himself belonged. The priests, the\nLevites, the singers, and doorkeepers formed castes in the strict sense of\nthe word. A man\u2019s birth definitely assigned him to one of these classes,\nto which none but the members of certain families could belong.\n\nBut the genealogies had a deeper significance. Israel was Jehovah\u2019s chosen\npeople, His son, to whom special privileges were guaranteed by solemn\ncovenant. A man\u2019s claim to share in this covenant depended on his genuine\nIsraelite descent, and the proof of such descent was an authentic\ngenealogy. In these chapters the chronicler has taken infinite pains to\ncollect pedigrees from all available sources and to construct a complete\nset of genealogies exhibiting the lines of descent of the families of\nIsrael. His interest in this research was not merely antiquarian: he was\ninvestigating matters of the greatest social and religious importance to\nall the members of the Jewish community, and especially to his colleagues\nand friends in the Temple service. These chapters, which seem to us so dry\nand useless, were probably regarded by the chronicler\u2019s contemporaries as\nthe most important part of his work. The preservation or discovery of a\ngenealogy was almost a matter of life and death. Witness the episode in\nEzra and Nehemiah(57): \u201cAnd of the priests: the children of Hobaiah, the\nchildren of Hakkoz, the children of Barzillai, which took a wife of the\ndaughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name.\nThese sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy,\nbut it was not found; therefore they were deemed polluted and put from the\npriesthood. And the governor said unto them that they should not eat of\nthe most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim.\u201d\nCases like these would stimulate our author\u2019s enthusiasm. As he turned\nover dusty receptacles, and unrolled frayed parchments, and painfully\ndeciphered crabbed and faded script, he would be excited by the hope of\ndiscovering some mislaid genealogy that would restore outcasts to their\nfull status and privileges as Israelites and priests. Doubtless he had\nalready acquired in some measure the subtle exegesis and minute casuistry\nthat were the glory of later Rabbinism. Ingenious interpretation of\nobscure writing or the happy emendation of half-obliterated words might\nlend opportune aid in the recovery of a genealogy. On the other hand,\nthere were vested interests ready to protest against the too easy\nacceptance of new claims. The priestly families of undoubted descent from\nAaron would not thank a chronicler for reviving lapsed rights to a share\nin the offices and revenues of the Temple. This part of our author\u2019s task\nwas as delicate as it was important.\n\nWe will now briefly consider the genealogies in these chapters in the\norder in which they are given. Chap. i. contains genealogies of the\npatriarchal period selected from Genesis. The existing races of the world\nare all traced back through Shem, Ham, and Japheth to Noah, and through\nhim to Adam. The chronicler thus accepts and repeats the doctrine of\nGenesis that God made of one every nation of men for to dwell on all the\nface of the earth.(58) All mankind, \u201cGreek and Jew, circumcision and\nuncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman,\u201d(59) were alike\ndescended from Noah, who was saved from the Flood by the special care of\nGod; from Enoch, who walked with God; from Adam, who was created by God in\nHis own image and likeness. The Israelites did not claim, like certain\nGreek clans, to be the descendants of a special god of their own, or, like\nthe Athenians, to have sprung miraculously from sacred soil. Their\ngenealogies testified that not merely Israelite nature, but human nature,\nis moulded on a Divine pattern. These apparently barren lists of names\nenshrine the great principles of the universal brotherhood of men and the\nuniversal Fatherhood of God. The chronicler wrote when the broad\nuniversalism of the prophets was being replaced by the hard exclusiveness\nof Judaism; and yet, perhaps unconsciously, he reproduces the genealogies\nwhich were to be one weapon of St. Paul in his struggle with that\nexclusiveness. The opening chapters of Genesis and Chronicles are among\nthe foundations of the catholicity of the Church of Christ.\n\nFor the antediluvian period only the Sethite genealogy is given. The\nchronicler\u2019s object was simply to give the origin of existing races; and\nthe descendants of Cain were omitted, as entirely destroyed by the Flood.\nFollowing the example of Genesis, the chronicler gives the genealogies of\nother races at the points at which they diverged from the ancestral line\nof Israel, and then continues the family history of the chosen race. In\nthis way the descendants of Japheth and Ham, the non-Abrahamic Semites,\nthe Ishmaelites, the sons of Keturah, and the Edomites are successively\nmentioned.\n\nThe relations of Israel with Edom were always close and mostly hostile.\nThe Edomites had taken advantage of the overthrow of the southern kingdom\nto appropriate the south of Judah, and still continued to occupy it. The\nkeen interest felt by the chronicler in Edom is shown by the large space\ndevoted to the Edomites. The close contiguity of the Jews and Idum\u00e6ans\ntended to promote mutual intercourse between them, and even threatened an\neventual fusion of the two peoples. As a matter of fact, the Idum\u00e6an\nHerods became rulers of Jud\u00e6a. To guard against such dangers to the\nseparateness of the Jewish people, the chronicler emphasises the\nhistorical distinction of race between them and the Edomites.\n\nFrom the beginning of the second chapter onwards the genealogies are\nwholly occupied with Israelites. The author\u2019s special interest in Judah is\nat once manifested. After giving the list of the twelve Patriarchs he\ndevotes two and a half chapters to the families of Judah. Here again the\nmaterials have been mostly obtained from the earlier historical books.\nThey are, however, combined with more recent traditions, so that in this\nchapter matter from different sources is pieced together in a very\nconfusing fashion. One source of this confusion was the principle that the\nJewish community could only consist of families of genuine Israelite\ndescent. Now a large number of the returned exiles traced their descent to\ntwo brothers, Caleb and Jerahmeel; but in the older narratives Caleb and\nJerahmeel are not Israelites. Caleb is a Kenizzite,(60) and his\ndescendants and those of Jerahmeel appear in close connection with the\nKenites.(61) Even in this chapter certain of the Calebites are called\nKenites and connected in some strange way with the Rechabites.(62) Though\nat the close of the monarchy the Calebites and Jerahmeelites had become an\nintegral part of the tribe of Judah, their separate origin had not been\nforgotten, and Caleb and Jerahmeel had not been included in the Israelite\ngenealogies. But after the Exile men came to feel more and more strongly\nthat a common faith implied unity of race. Moreover, the practical unity\nof the Jews with these Kenizzites overbore the dim and fading memory of\nancient tribal distinctions. Jews and Kenizzites had shared the Captivity,\nthe Exile, and the Return; they worked, and fought, and worshipped side by\nside; and they were to all intents and purposes one nation, alike the\npeople of Jehovah. This obvious and important practical truth was\nexpressed as such truths were then wont to be expressed. The children of\nCaleb and Jerahmeel were finally and formally adopted into the chosen\nrace. Caleb and Jerahmeel are no longer the sons of Jephunneh the\nKenizzite; they are the sons of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of\nJudah.(63) A new genealogy was formed as a recognition rather than an\nexplanation of accomplished facts.\n\nOf the section containing the genealogies of Judah, the lion\u2019s share is\nnaturally given to the house of David, to which a part of the second\nchapter and the whole of the third are devoted.\n\nNext follow genealogies of the remaining tribes, those of Levi and\nBenjamin being by far the most complete. Chap. vi., which is devoted to\nLevi, affords evidence of the use by the chronicler of independent and\nsometimes inconsistent sources, and also illustrates his special interest\nin the priesthood and the Temple choir. A list of high-priests from Aaron\nto Ahimaaz is given twice over (vv. 4-8 and 49-53), but only one line of\nhigh-priests is recognised, the house of Zadok, whom Josiah\u2019s reforms had\nmade the one priestly family in Israel. Their ancient rivals the\nhigh-priests of the house of Eli are as entirely ignored as the\nantediluvian Cainites. The existing high-priestly dynasty had been so long\nestablished that these other priests of Saul and David seemed no longer to\nhave any significance for the religion of Israel.\n\nThe pedigree of the three Levitical families of Gershom, Kohath, and\nMerari is also given twice over: in vv. 16-30 and 31-49. The former\npedigree begins with the sons of Levi, and proceeds to their descendants;\nthe latter begins with the founders of the guilds of singers, Heman,\nAsaph, and Ethan, and traces back their genealogies to Kohath, Gershom,\nand Merari respectively. But the pedigrees do not agree; compare, for\ninstance, the lists of the Kohathites:\u2014\n\n22-24.            36-38.\nKohath            Kohath\n_Amminadab_       _Izhar_\nKorah             Korah\n_Assir_\n_Elkanah_\nEbiasaph          Ebiasaph\nAssir             Assir\nTahath            Tahath\n_Uriel_           _Zephaniah_\n_Uzziah_          _Azariah_\n_Shaul_           etc.\n\nWe have here one of many illustrations of the fact that the chronicler\nused materials of very different value. To attempt to prove the absolute\nconsistency of all his genealogies would be mere waste of time. It is by\nno means certain that he himself supposed them to be consistent. The frank\njuxtaposition of varying lists of ancestors rather suggests that he was\nprompted by a scholarly desire to preserve for his readers all available\nevidence of every kind.\n\nIn reading the genealogies of the tribe of Benjamin, it is specially\ninteresting to find that in the Jewish community of the Restoration there\nwere families tracing their descent through Mephibosheth and Jonathan to\nSaul.(64) Apparently the chronicler and his contemporaries shared this\nspecial interest in the fortunes of a fallen dynasty, for the genealogy is\ngiven twice over. These circumstances are the more striking because in the\nactual history of Chronicles Saul is all but ignored.\n\nThe rest of the ninth chapter deals with the inhabitants of Jerusalem and\nthe ministry of the Temple after the return from the Captivity, and is\npartly identical with sections of Ezra and Nehemiah. It closes the family\nhistory, as it were, of Israel, and its position indicates the standpoint\nand ruling interests of the chronicler.\n\nThus the nine opening chapters of genealogies and kindred matter strike\nthe key-notes of the whole book. Some are personal and professional; some\nare religious. On the one hand, we have the origin of existing families\nand institutions; on the other hand, we have the election of the tribe of\nJudah and the house of David, of the tribe of Levi and the house of Aaron.\n\nLet us consider first the hereditary character of the Jewish religion and\npriesthood. Here, as elsewhere, the formal doctrine only recognised and\naccepted actual facts. The conditions which received the sanction of\nreligion were first imposed by the force of circumstances. In primitive\ntimes, if there was to be any religion at all, it had to be national; if\nGod was to be worshipped at all, His worship was necessarily national, and\nHe became in some measure a national God. Sympathies are limited by\nknowledge and by common interest. The ordinary Israelite knew very little\nof any other people than his own. There was little international comity in\nprimitive times, and nations were slow to recognise that they had common\ninterests. It was difficult for an Israelite to believe that his beloved\nJehovah, in whom he had been taught to trust, was also the God of the\nArabs and Syrians, who periodically raided his crops, and cattle, and\nslaves, and sometimes carried off his children, or of the Chald\u00e6ans, who\nmade deliberate and complete arrangements for plundering the whole\ncountry, rasing its cities to the ground, and carrying away the population\ninto distant exile. By a supreme act of faith, the prophets claimed the\nenemies and oppressors of Israel as instruments of the will of Jehovah,\nand the chronicler\u2019s genealogies show that he shared this faith; but it\nwas still inevitable that the Jews should look out upon the world at large\nfrom the standpoint of their own national interests and experience.\nJehovah was God of heaven and earth; but Israelites knew Him through the\ndeliverance He had wrought for Israel, the punishments He had inflicted on\nher sins, and the messages He had entrusted to her prophets. As far as\ntheir knowledge and practical experience went, they knew Him as the God of\nIsrael. The course of events since the fall of Samaria narrowed still\nfurther the local associations of Hebrew worship.\n\n\n    \u201cGod was wroth,\n    And greatly abhorred Israel,\n    So that He forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh,\n    The tent which He placed among men;\n\n    He refused the tent of Joseph,\n    And chose not the tribe of Ephraim,\n    But chose the tribe of Judah,\n    The Mount Zion which He loved:\n    And He built His sanctuary like the heights,\n    Like the earth, which He hath established for ever.\u201d(65)\n\n\nWe are doubtless right in criticising those Jews whose limitations led\nthem to regard Jehovah as a kind of personal possession, the inheritance\nof their own nation, and not of other peoples. But even here we can only\nblame their negations. Jehovah _was_ their inheritance and personal\npossession; but then He was also the inheritance of other nations. This\nJewish heresy is by no means extinct: white men do not always believe that\ntheir God is equally the God of the negro; Englishmen are inclined to\nthink that God is the God of England in a more especial way than He is the\nGod of France. When we discourse concerning God in history, we mostly mean\nour own history. We can see the hand of Providence in the wreck of the\nArmada and the overthrow of Napoleon; but we are not so ready to recognise\nin the same Napoleon the Divine instrument that created a new Europe by\nrelieving her peoples from cruel and degrading tyranny. We scarcely\nrealise that God cares as much for the Continent as He does for our\nisland.\n\nWe have great and perhaps sufficient excuses, but we must let the Jews\nhave the benefit of them. God is as much the God of one nation as of\nanother; but He fulfils Himself to different nations in different ways, by\na various providential discipline. Each people is bound to believe that\nGod has specially adapted His dealings to its needs, nor can we be\nsurprised if men forget or fail to observe that God has done no less for\ntheir neighbours. Each nation rightly regards its religious ideas, and\nlife, and literature as a precious inheritance peculiarly its own; and it\nshould not be too severely blamed for being ignorant that other nations\nhave their inheritance also. Such considerations largely justify the\ninterest in heredity shown by the chronicler\u2019s genealogies. On the\npositive, practical side, religion _is_ largely a matter of heredity, and\nought to be. The Christian sacrament of baptism is a continual profession\nof this truth: our children are \u201cclean\u201d; they are within the covenant of\ngrace; we claim for them the privileges of the Church to which we belong.\nThat was also part of the meaning of the genealogies.\n\nIn the broad field of social and religious life the problems of heredity\nare in some ways less complicated than in the more exact discussions of\nphysical science. Practical effects can be considered without attempting\nan accurate analysis of causes. Family history not only determines\nphysical constitution, mental gifts, and moral character, but also fixes\nfor the most part country, home, education, circumstances, and social\nposition. All these were a man\u2019s inheritance more peculiarly in Israel\nthan with us; and in many cases in Israel a man was often trained to\ninherit a family profession. Apart from the ministry of the Temple, we\nread of a family of craftsmen, of other families that were potters, of\nothers who dwelt with the king for his work, and of the families of the\nhouse of them that wrought fine linen.(66) Religion is largely involved in\nthe manifold inheritance which a man receives from his fathers. His birth\ndetermines his religious education, the examples of religious life set\nbefore him, the forms of worship in which as a child he takes part. Most\nmen live and die in the religion of their childhood; they worship the God\nof their fathers; Romanist remains Romanist: Protestant remains\nProtestant. They may fail to grasp any living faith, or may lose all\ninterest in religion; but such religion as most men have is part of their\ninheritance. In the Israel of the chronicler faith and devotion to God\nwere almost always and entirely inherited. They were part of the great\ndebt which a man owed to his fathers.\n\nThe recognition of these facts should tend to foster our humility and\nreverence, to encourage patriotism and philanthropy. We are the creatures\nand debtors of the past, though we are slow to own our obligations. We\nhave nothing that we have not received; but we are apt to consider\nourselves self-made men, the architects and builders of our own fortunes,\nwho have the right to be self-satisfied, self-assertive, and selfish. The\nheir of all the ages, in the full vigour of youth, takes his place in the\nforemost ranks of time, and marches on in the happy consciousness of\nprofound and multifarious wisdom, immense resources, and magnificent\nopportunity. He forgets or even despises the generations of labour and\nanguish that have built up for him his great inheritance. The genealogies\nare a silent protest against such insolent ingratitude. They remind us\nthat in bygone days a man derived his gifts and received his opportunities\nfrom his ancestors; they show us men as the links in a chain, tenants for\nlife, as it were, of our estate, called upon to pay back with interest to\nthe future the debt which they have incurred to the past. We see that the\nchain is a long one, with many links; and the slight estimate we are\ninclined to put upon the work of individuals in each generation recoils\nupon our own pride. We also are but individuals of a generation that is\nonly one of the thousands needed to work out the Divine purpose for\nmankind. We are taught the humility that springs from a sense of\nobligation and responsibility.\n\nWe learn reverence for the workers and achievements of the past, and most\nof all for God. We are reminded of the scale of the Divine working:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cA thousand years in Thy sight\n    Are but as yesterday when it is past\n    And as a watch in the night.\u201d\n\n\nA genealogy is a brief and pointed reminder that God has been working\nthrough all the countless generations behind us. The bare series of names\nis an expressive diagram of His mighty process. Each name in the earlier\nlists stands for a generation or even for several generations. The\ngenealogies go back into dim, prehistoric periods; they suggest a past too\nremote for our imagining. And yet they take us back to Adam, to the very\nbeginning of human life. From that beginning, however many thousands or\ntens of thousands of years ago, the life of man has been sacred, the\nobject of the Divine care and love, the instrument of the Divine purpose.\n\nLater on we see the pedigree of our race dividing into countless branches,\nall of which are represented in this sacred diagram of humanity. The\nDivine working not only extends over all time, but also embraces all the\ncomplicated circumstances and relationships of the families of mankind.\nThese genealogies suggest a lesson probably not intended by the\nchronicler. We recognise the unique character of the history of Israel,\nbut in some measure we discern in this one full and detailed narrative of\nthe chosen people a type of the history of every race. Others had not the\nelection of Israel, but each had its own vocation. God\u2019s power, and\nwisdom, and love are manifested in the history of one chosen people on a\nscale commensurate with our limited faculties, so that we may gain some\nfaint idea of the marvellous providence in _all_ history of the Father\nfrom whom _every_ family in heaven and on earth is named.\n\nAnother principle closely allied to heredity and also discussed in modern\ntimes is the solidarity of the race. Humanity is supposed to possess\nsomething akin to a common consciousness, personality, or individuality.\nSuch a quality evidently becomes more intense as we narrow its scope from\nthe race to the nation, the clan, and the family; it has its roots in\nfamily relationships. Tribal, national, humanitarian feelings indicate\nthat the larger societies have taken upon themselves something of the\ncharacter of the family. Thus the common feelings and mutual sympathies of\nmankind are due ultimately to blood relationship. The genealogies that set\nforth family histories are the symbols of this brotherhood or solidarity\nof our race. The chart of converging lines of ancestors in Israel carried\nmen\u2019s minds back from the separate families to their common ancestor;\nagain, the ancestry of ancestors led back to a still earlier common\norigin, and the process continued till all the lines met in Noah. Each\nstage of the process enlarged the range of every man\u2019s kinship, and\nbroadened the natural area of mutual help and affection. It is true that\nthe Jews failed to learn this larger lesson from their genealogies, but\nwithin their own community they felt intensely the bond of kinship and\nbrotherhood. Modern patriotism reproduces the strong Jewish national\nfeeling, and our humanitarianism is beginning to extend it to the whole\nworld. By this time the facts of heredity have been more carefully studied\nand are better understood. If we drew up typical genealogies now, they\nwould more fully and accurately represent the mutual relationships of our\npeople. As far as they go, the chronicler\u2019s genealogies form a clear and\ninstructive diagram of the mutual dependence of man on man and family on\nfamily. The value of the diagram does not require the accuracy of the\nactual names any more than the validity of Euclid requires the actual\nexistence of triangles called A B C, D E F. These genealogies are in any\ncase a true symbol of the facts of family relations; but they are drawn,\nso to speak, in one dimension only, backwards and forwards in time. Yet\nthe real family life exists in three dimensions. There are numerous\ncross-relations, cousinship of all degrees, as well as sonship and\nbrotherhood. A man has not merely his male ancestors in the directly\nascending line\u2014father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc.\u2014but he has\nfemale ancestors as well. By going back three or four generations a man is\nconnected with an immense number of cousins; and if the complete network\nof ten or fifteen generations could be worked out, it would probably show\nsome blood bond throughout a whole nation. Thus the ancestral roots of a\nman\u2019s life and character have wide ramifications in the former generations\nof his people. The further we go back the larger is the element of\nancestry common to the different individuals of the same community. The\nchronicler\u2019s genealogies only show us individuals as links in a set of\nchains. The more complete genealogical scheme would be better illustrated\nby the ganglia of the nervous system, each of which is connected by\nnumerous nerve fibres with the other ganglia. The Church has been compared\nto the body, \u201cwhich is one, and hath many members, and all the members of\nthe body, being many, are one body.\u201d Humanity, by its natural kinship, is\nalso such a body; the nation is still more truly \u201cone body.\u201d Patriotism\nand humanity are instincts as natural and as binding as those of the\nfamily; and the genealogies express or symbolise the wider family ties,\nthat they may commend the virtues and enforce the duties that arise out of\nthese ties.\n\nBefore closing this chapter something may be said on one or two special\npoints. Women are virtually ignored in these genealogies, a fact that\nrather indicates a failure to recognise their influence than the absence\nof such influence. Here and there a woman is mentioned for some special\nreason. For instance, the names of Zeruiah and Abigail are inserted in\norder to show that Joab, Abishai, and Asahel, together with Amasa, were\nall cousins of David. The same keen interest in David leads the chronicler\nto record the names of his wives. It is noteworthy that of the four women\nwho are mentioned in St. Matthew\u2019s genealogy of our Lord only two\u2014Tamar\nand Bath-shua (_i.e._, Bath-sheba)\u2014are mentioned here. Probably St.\nMatthew was careful to complete the list because Rahab and Ruth, like\nTamar and possibly Bath-sheba, were foreigners, and their names in the\ngenealogy indicated a connection between Christ and the Gentiles, and\nserved to emphasise His mission to be the Saviour of the world.\n\nAgain, much caution is necessary in applying any principle of heredity. A\ngenealogy, as we have seen, suggests our dependence in many ways upon our\nancestry. But a man\u2019s relations to his kindred are many and complicated; a\nquality, for instance, may be latent for one or more generations and then\nreappear, so that to all appearance a man inherits from his grandfather or\nfrom a more remote ancestor rather than from his father or mother.\nConversely the presence of certain traits of character in a child does not\nshow that any corresponding tendency has necessarily been active in the\nlife of either parent. Neither must the influence of circumstances be\nconfounded with that of heredity. Moreover, very large allowance must be\nmade for our ignorance of the laws that govern the human will, an\nignorance that will often baffle our attempts to find in heredity any\nsimple explanation of men\u2019s characters and actions. Thomas Fuller has a\nquaint \u201cScripture observation\u201d that gives an important practical\napplication of these principles:\u2014\n\n\u201cLord, I find the genealogy of my Saviour strangely chequered with four\nremarkable changes in four immediate generations:\n\n\u201c1. \u2018Rehoboam begat Abiam\u2019; that is, a bad father begat a bad son.\n\n\u201c2. \u2018Abiam begat Asa\u2019; that is, a bad father a good son.\n\n\u201c3. \u2018Asa begat Jehosaphat\u2019; that is, a good father a good son.\n\n\u201c4. \u2018Jehosaphat begat Joram\u2019; that is, a good father a bad son.\n\n\u201cI see, Lord, from hence that my father\u2019s piety cannot be entailed; that\nis bad news for me. But I see also that actual impiety is not always\nhereditary; that is good news for my son.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nChapter III. Statistics.\n\n\nStatistics play an important part in Chronicles and in the Old Testament\ngenerally. To begin with, there are the genealogies and other lists of\nnames, such as the lists of David\u2019s counsellors and the roll of honour of\nhis mighty men. The chronicler specially delights in lists of names, and\nmost of all in lists of Levitical choristers. He gives us lists of the\norchestras and choirs who performed when the Ark was brought to Zion(67)\nand at Hezekiah\u2019s passover,(68) also a list of Levites whom Jehoshaphat\nsent out to teach in Judah.(69) No doubt family pride was gratified when\nthe chronicler\u2019s contemporaries and friends read the names of their\nancestors in connection with great events in the history of their\nreligion. Possibly they supplied him with the information from which these\nlists were compiled. An incidental result of the celibacy of the Romanist\nclergy has been to render ancient ecclesiastical genealogies impossible;\nmodern clergymen cannot trace their descent to the monks who landed with\nAugustine. Our genealogies might enable a historian to construct lists of\nthe combatants at Agincourt and Hastings; but the Crusades are the only\nwars of the Church militant for which modern pedigrees could furnish a\nmuster-roll.\n\nWe find also in the Old Testament the specifications and\nsubscription-lists for the Tabernacle and for Solomon\u2019s temple.(70) These\nstatistics, however, are not furnished for the second Temple, probably for\nthe same reason that in modern subscription-lists the donors of shillings\nand half-crowns are to be indicated by initials, or described as \u201cfriends\u201d\nand \u201csympathisers,\u201d or massed together under the heading \u201csmaller sums.\u201d\n\nThe Old Testament is also rich in census returns and statements as to the\nnumbers of armies and of the divisions of which they were composed. There\nare the returns of the census taken twice in the wilderness and accounts\nof the numbers of the different families who came from Babylon with\nZerubbabel and later on with Ezra; there is a census of the Levites in\nDavid\u2019s time according to their several families(71); there are the\nnumbers of the tribal contingents that came to Hebron to make David\nking,(72) and much similar information.\n\nStatistics therefore occupy a conspicuous position in the inspired record\nof Divine revelation, and yet we often hesitate to connect such terms as\n\u201cinspiration\u201d and \u201crevelation\u201d with numbers, and names, and details of\ncivil and ecclesiastical organisation. We are afraid lest any stress laid\non purely accidental details should distract men\u2019s attention from the\neternal essence of the Gospel, lest any suggestion that the certainty of\nChristian truth is dependent on the accuracy of these statistics should\nbecome a stumbling-block and destroy the faith of some. Concerning such\nmatters there have been many foolish questions of genealogies, profane and\nvain babblings, which have increased unto more ungodliness. Quite apart\nfrom these, even in the Old Testament a sanctity attaches to the number\nseven, but there is no warrant for any considerable expenditure of time\nand thought upon mystical arithmetic. A symbolism runs through the details\nof the building, furniture, and ritual alike of the Tabernacle and the\nTemple, and this symbolism possesses a legitimate religious significance;\nbut its exposition is not specially suggested by the book of Chronicles.\nThe exposition of such symbolism is not always sufficiently governed by a\nsense of proportion. Ingenuity in supplying subtle interpretations of\nminute details often conceals the great truths which the symbols are\nreally intended to enforce. Moreover, the sacred writers did not give\nstatistics merely to furnish materials for Cabbala and Gematria or even to\nserve as theological types and symbols. Sometimes their purpose was more\nsimple and practical. If we knew all the history of the Tabernacle and\nTemple subscription-lists, we should doubtless find that they had been\nused to stimulate generous gifts towards the erection of the second\nTemple. Preachers for building funds can find abundance of suitable texts\nin Exodus, Kings, and Chronicles.\n\nBut Biblical statistics are also examples in accuracy and thoroughness of\ninformation, and recognitions of the more obscure and prosaic\nmanifestations of the higher life. Indeed, in these and other ways the\nBible gives an anticipatory sanction to the exact sciences.\n\nThe mention of accuracy in connection with Chronicles may be received by\nsome readers with a contemptuous smile. But we are indebted to the\nchronicler for exact and full information about the Jews who returned from\nBabylon; and in spite of the extremely severe judgment passed upon\nChronicles by many critics, we may still venture to believe that the\nchronicler\u2019s statistics are as accurate as his knowledge and critical\ntraining rendered possible. He may sometimes give figures obtained by\ncalculation from uncertain data, but such a practice is quite consistent\nwith honesty and a desire to supply the best available information. Modern\nscholars are quite ready to present us with figures as to the membership\nof the Christian Church under Antoninus Pius or Constantine; and some of\nthese figures are not much more probable than the most doubtful in\nChronicles. All that is necessary to make the chronicler\u2019s statistics an\nexample to us is that they should be the monument of a conscientious\nattempt to tell the truth, and this they undoubtedly are.\n\nThis Biblical example is the more useful because statistics are often evil\nspoken of, and they have no outward attractiveness to shield them from\npopular prejudice. We are told that \u201cnothing is so false as statistics,\u201d\nand that \u201cfigures will prove anything\u201d; and the polemic is sustained by\nworks like _Hard Times_ and the awful example of Mr. Gradgrind. Properly\nunderstood, these proverbs illustrate the very general impatience of any\ndemand for exact thought and expression. If \u201cfigures\u201d will prove anything,\nso will texts.\n\nThough this popular prejudice cannot be altogether ignored, yet it need\nnot be taken too seriously. The opposite principle, when stated, will at\nonce be seen to be a truism. For it amounts to this: exact and\ncomprehensive knowledge is the basis of a right understanding of history,\nand is a necessary condition of right action. This principle is often\nneglected because it is obvious. Yet, to illustrate it from our author, a\nknowledge of the size and plan of the Temple greatly adds to the vividness\nof our pictures of Hebrew religion. We apprehend later Jewish life much\nmore clearly with the aid of the statistics as to the numbers, families,\nand settlements of the returning exiles; and similarly the account-books\nof the bailiff of an English estate in the fourteenth century are worth\nseveral hundred pages of contemporary theology. These considerations may\nencourage those who perform the thankless task of compiling the\nstatistics, subscription-lists, and balance-sheets of missionary and\nphilanthropic societies. The zealous and intelligent historian of\nChristian life and service will need these dry records to enable him to\nunderstand his subject, and the highest literary gifts may be employed in\nthe eloquent exposition of these apparently uninteresting facts and\nfigures. Moreover, upon the accuracy of these records depends the\npossibility of determining a true course for the future. Neither societies\nnor individuals, for instance, can afford to live beyond their income\nwithout knowing it.\n\nStatistics, too, are the only form in which many acts of service can be\nrecognised and recorded. Literature can only deal with typical instances,\nand naturally it selects the more dramatic. The missionary report can only\ntell the story of a few striking conversions; it may give the history of\nthe exceptional self-denial involved in one or two of its subscriptions;\nfor the rest we must be content with tables and subscription-lists. But\nthese dry statistics represent an infinitude of patience and self-denial,\nof work and prayer, of Divine grace and blessing. The city missionary may\nnarrate his experiences with a few inquirers and penitents, but the great\nbulk of his work can only be recorded in the statement of visits paid and\nservices conducted. We are tempted sometimes to disparage these\nstatements, to ask how many of the visits and services had any result; we\nare impatient sometimes because Christian work is estimated by any such\nnumerical line and measure. No doubt the method has many defects, and must\nnot be used too mechanically; but we cannot give it up without ignoring\naltogether much earnest and successful labour.\n\nOur chronicler\u2019s interest in statistics lays healthy emphasis on the\npractical character of religion. There is a danger of identifying\nspiritual force with literary and rhetorical gifts; to recognise the\nreligious value of statistics is the most forcible protest against such\nidentification. The permanent contribution of any age to religious thought\nwill naturally take a literary form, and the higher the literary qualities\nof religious writing, the more likely it is to survive. Shakespeare,\nMilton, and Bunyan have probably exercised a more powerful direct\nreligious influence on subsequent generations than all the theologians of\nthe seventeenth century. But the supreme service of the Church in any age\nis its influence on its own generation, by which it moulds the generation\nimmediately following. That influence can only be estimated by a careful\nstudy of all possible information, and especially of statistics. We cannot\nassign mathematical values to spiritual effects and tabulate them like\nBoard of Trade returns; but real spiritual movements will before long have\npractical issues, that can be heard, and seen, and felt, and even admit of\nbeing put into tables. \u201cThe wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou\nhearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh and whither it\ngoeth\u201d(73); and yet the boughs and the corn bend before the wind, and the\nships are carried across the sea to their desired haven. Tables may be\ndrawn up of the tonnage and the rate of sailing. So is every one that is\nborn of the Spirit. You cannot tell when and how God breathes upon the\nsoul; but if the Divine Spirit be indeed at work in any society, there\nwill be fewer crimes and quarrels, less scandal, and more deeds of\ncharity. We may justly suspect a revival which has no effect upon the\nstatistical records of national life. Subscription-lists are very\nimperfect tests of enthusiasm, but any widespread Christian fervour would\nbe worth little if it did not swell subscription-lists.\n\nChronicles is not the most important witness to a sympathetic relationship\nbetween the Bible and exact science. The first chapter of Genesis is the\nclassic example of the appropriation by an inspired writer of the\nscientific spirit and method. Some chapters in Job show a distinctly\nscientific interest in natural phenomena. Moreover, the direct concern of\nChronicles is in the religious aspects of social science. And yet there is\na patient accumulation of data with no obvious dramatic value: names,\ndates, numbers, specifications, and ritual which do not improve the\nliterary character of the narrative. This conscientious recording of dry\nfacts, this noting down of anything and everything that connects with the\nsubject, is closely akin to the initial processes of the inductive\nsciences. True, the chronicler\u2019s interests are in some directions narrowed\nby personal and professional feeling; but within these limits he is\nanxious to make a complete record, which, as we have seen, sometimes leads\nto repetition. Now inductive science is based on unlimited statistics. The\nastronomer and biologist share the chronicler\u2019s appetite for this kind of\nmental food. The lists in Chronicles are few and meagre compared to the\nrecords of Greenwich Observatory or the volumes which contain the data of\nbiology or sociology; but the chronicler becomes in a certain sense the\nforerunner of Darwin, Spencer, and Galton. The differences are indeed\nimmense. The interval of two thousand odd years between the ancient\nannalist and the modern scientists has not been thrown away. In estimating\nthe value of evidence and interpreting its significance, the chronicler\nwas a mere child compared with his modern successors. His aims and\ninterests were entirely different from theirs. But yet he was moved by a\nspirit which they may be said to inherit. His careful collection of facts,\neven his tendency to read the ideas and institutions of his own time into\nancient history, are indications of a reverence for the past and of an\nanxiety to base ideas and action upon a knowledge of that past. This\nforeshadows the reverence of modern science for experience, its anxiety to\nbase its laws and theories upon observation of what has actually occurred.\nThe principle that the past determines and interprets the present and the\nfuture lies at the root of the theological attitude of the most\nconservative minds and the scientific work of the most advanced thinkers.\nThe conservative spirit, like the chronicler, is apt to suffer its\ninherited prepossessions and personal interests to hinder a true\nobservation and understanding of the past. But the chronicler\u2019s\nopportunities and experience were narrow indeed compared with those of\ntheological students to-day; and we have every right to lay stress on the\nprogress which he had achieved and the onward path that it indicated\nrather than on the yet more advanced stages which still lay beyond his\nhorizon.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV. Family Traditions. 1 Chron. i. 10, 19, 46; ii. 3, 7, 34; iv.\n9, 10, 18, 22, 27, 34-43; v. 10, 18-22; vii. 21-23; viii. 13.\n\n\nChronicles is a miniature Old Testament, and may have been meant as a\nhandbook for ordinary people, who had no access to the whole library of\nsacred writings. It contains nothing corresponding to the books of Wisdom\nor the apocalyptic literature; but all the other types of Old Testament\nliterature are represented. There are genealogies, statistics, ritual,\nhistory, psalms, and prophecies. The interest shown by Chronicles in\nfamily traditions harmonises with the stress laid by the Hebrew Scriptures\nupon family life. The other historical books are largely occupied with the\nfamily history of the Patriarchs, of Moses, of Jephthah, Gideon, Samson,\nSaul, and David. The chronicler intersperses his genealogies with short\nanecdotes about the different families and tribes. Some of these are\nborrowed from the older books; but others are peculiar to our author, and\nwere doubtless obtained by him from the family records and traditions of\nhis contemporaries. The statements that \u201cNimrod began to be mighty upon\nthe earth\u201d(74); that \u201cthe name of one\u201d of Eber\u2019s sons \u201cwas Peleg, because\nin his days the earth was divided\u201d(75); and that Hadad \u201csmote Moab in the\nfield of Midian,\u201d(76) are borrowed from Genesis. As he omits events much\nmore important and more closely connected with the history of Israel, and\ngives no account of Babel, or of Abraham, or of the conquest of Canaan,\nthese little notes are probably retained by accident, because at times the\nchronicler copied his authorities somewhat mechanically. It was less\ntrouble to take the genealogies as they stood than to exercise great care\nin weeding out everything but the bare names.\n\nIn one instance,(77) however, the chronicler has erased a curious note to\na genealogy in Genesis. A certain Anah is mentioned both in Genesis and\nChronicles among the Horites, who inhabited Mount Seir before it was\nconquered by Edom. Most of us, in reading the Authorised Version, have\nwondered what historical or religious interest secured a permanent record\nfor the fact that \u201cAnah found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the\nasses of Zibeon his father.\u201d A possible solution seemed to be that this\nnote was preserved as the earliest reference to the existence of mules,\nwhich animals played an important part in the social life of Palestine;\nbut the Revised Version sets aside this explanation by substituting \u201chot\nsprings\u201d for \u201cmules,\u201d as these hot springs are only mentioned here, the\npassage becomes a greater puzzle than ever. The chronicler could hardly\noverlook this curious piece of information, but he naturally felt that\nthis obscure arch\u00e6ological note about the aboriginal Horites did not fall\nwithin the scope of his work. On the other hand, the tragic fates of Er\nand Achar(78) had a direct genealogical significance. They are referred to\nin order to explain why the lists contain no descendants of these members\nof the tribe of Judah. The notes to these names illustrate the more\ndepressing aspects of history. The men who lived happy, honourable lives\ncan be mentioned one after another without any comment; but even the\ncompiler of pedigrees pauses to note the crimes and misfortunes that broke\nthe natural order of life. The annals of old families dwell with\nmelancholy pride on murders, and fatal duels, and suicides. History, like\nan ancient mansion, is haunted with unhappy ghosts. Yet our interest in\ntragedy is a testimony to the blessedness of life; comfort and enjoyment\nare too monotonously common to be worth recording, but we are attracted\nand excited by exceptional instances of suffering and sin.\n\nLet us turn to the episodes of family life only found in Chronicles. They\nmay mostly be arranged in little groups of two or three, and some of the\ngroups present us with an interesting contrast.\n\nWe learn from ii. 34-41 and iv. 18 that two Jewish families traced their\ndescent from Egyptian ancestors. Sheshan, according to Chronicles, was\neighth in descent from Judah and fifth from Jerahmeel, the brother of\nCaleb. Having daughters but no son, he gave one of his daughters in\nmarriage to an Egyptian slave named Jarha. The descendants of this union\nare traced for thirteen generations. Genealogies, however, are not always\ncomplete; and our other data do not suffice to determine even\napproximately the date of this marriage. But the five generations between\nJerahmeel and Sheshan indicate a period long after the Exodus; and as\nEgypt plays no recorded part in the history of Israel between the Exodus\nand the reign of Solomon, the marriage may have taken place under the\nmonarchy. The story is a curious parallel to that of Joseph, with the\nparts of Israelite and Egyptian reversed. God is no respecter of persons;\nit is not only when the desolate and afflicted in strange lands belong to\nthe chosen people that Jehovah relieves and delivers them. It is true of\nthe Egyptian, as well as of the Israelite, that \u201cthe Lord maketh poor and\nmaketh rich.\u201d\n\n\n    \u201cHe bringeth low, He also lifteth up;\n    He raiseth up the poor out of the dust:\n    He lifteth up the needy from the dunghill,\n    To make them sit with princes\n    And inherit the throne of glory.\u201d(79)\n\n\nThis song might have been sung at Jarha\u2019s wedding as well as at Joseph\u2019s.\n\nBoth these marriages throw a sidelight upon the character of Eastern\nslavery. They show how sharply and deeply it was divided from the hopeless\ndegradation of negro slavery in America. Israelites did not recognise\ndistinctions of race and colour between themselves and their bondsmen so\nas to treat them as worse than pariahs and regard them with physical\nloathing. An American considers himself disgraced by a slight taint of\nnegro blood in his ancestry, but a noble Jewish family was proud to trace\nits descent from an Egyptian slave.\n\nThe other story is somewhat different, and rests upon an obscure and\ncorrupt passage in iv. 18. The confusion makes it impossible to arrive at\nany date, even by rough approximation. The genealogical relations of the\nactors are by no means certain, but some interesting points are tolerably\nclear. Some time after the conquest of Canaan, a descendant of Caleb\nmarried two wives, one a Jewess, the other an Egyptian. The Egyptian was\nBithiah, a daughter of Pharaoh, _i.e._, of the contemporary king of Egypt.\nIt appears probable that the inhabitants of Eshtemoa traced their descent\nto this Egyptian princess, while those of Gedor, Soco, and Zanoah claimed\nMered as their ancestor by his Jewish wife.(80) Here again we have the\nbare outline of a romance, which the imagination is at liberty to fill in.\nIt has been suggested that Bithiah may have been the victim of some Jewish\nraid into Egypt, but surely a king of Egypt would have either ransomed his\ndaughter or recovered her by force of arms. The story rather suggests that\nthe chiefs of the clans of Judah were semi-independent and possessed of\nconsiderable wealth and power, so that the royal family of Egypt could\nintermarry with them, as with reigning sovereigns. But if so, the pride of\nEgypt must have been greatly broken since the time when the Pharaohs\nhaughtily refused to give their daughters in marriage to the kings of\nBabylon.\n\nBoth Egyptian alliances occur among the Kenizzites, the descendants of the\nbrothers Caleb and Jerahmeel. In one case a Jewess marries an Egyptian\nslave; in the other a Jew marries an Egyptian princess. Doubtless these\nmarriages did not stand alone, and there were others with foreigners of\nvarying social rank. The stories show that even after the Captivity the\ntradition survived that the clans in the south of Judah had been closely\nconnected with Egypt, and that Solomon was not the only member of the\ntribe who had taken an Egyptian wife. Now intermarriage with foreigners is\npartly forbidden by the Pentateuch; and the prohibition was extended and\nsternly enforced by Ezra and Nehemiah.(81) In the time of the chronicler\nthere was a growing feeling against such marriages. Hence the traditions\nwe are discussing cannot have originated after the Return, but must be at\nany rate earlier than the publication of Deuteronomy under Josiah.\n\nSuch marriages with Egyptians must have had some influence on the religion\nof the south of Judah, but probably the foreigners usually followed the\nexample of Ruth, and adopted the faith of the families into which they\ncame. When they said, \u201cThy people shall be my people,\u201d they did not fail\nto add, \u201cand thy God shall be my God.\u201d When the Egyptian princess married\nthe head of a Jewish clan, she became one of Jehovah\u2019s people; and her\nadoption into the family of the God of Israel was symbolised by a new\nname: \u201cBithiah,\u201d \u201cdaughter of Jehovah.\u201d Whether later Judaism owed\nanything to Egyptian influences can only be matter of conjecture; at any\nrate, they did not pervert the southern clans from their old faith. The\nCalebites and Jerahmeelites were the backbone of Judah both before and\nafter the Captivity.\n\nThe remaining traditions relate to the warfare of the Israelites with\ntheir neighbours. The first is a colourless reminiscence, that might have\nbeen recorded of the effectual prayer of any pious Israelite. The\ngenealogies of chap. iv. are interrupted by a paragraph entirely\nunconnected with the context. The subject of this fragment is a certain\nJabez never mentioned elsewhere, and, so far as any record goes, as\nentirely \u201cwithout father, without mother, without genealogy,\u201d as\nMelchizedek himself. As chap. iv. deals with the families of Judah, and in\nii. 55 there is a town Jabez also belonging to Judah, we may suppose that\nthe chronicler had reasons for assigning Jabez to that tribe; but he has\nneither given these reasons, nor indicated how Jabez was connected\ntherewith. The paragraph runs as follows(82): \u201cAnd Jabez was honoured\nabove his brethren, and his mother called his name Jabez\u201d (_Ya\u2019b\u0113\u00e7_),\n\u201csaying, In pain\u201d (_\u2019\u014d\u00e7eb_) \u201cI bore him. And Jabez called upon the God of\nIsrael, saying,\u2014\n\n\n    \u2018If Thou wilt indeed bless me\n      By enlarging my possessions,\n    And Thy hand be with me\n      To provide pasture,(83) that I be not in distress\u2019 (_\u2019\u014d\u00e7eb_).\n\n\nAnd God brought about what he asked.\u201d The chronicler has evidently\ninserted here a broken and disconnected fragment from one of his sources;\nand we are puzzled to understand why he gives so much, and no more. Surely\nnot merely to introduce the etymologies of Jabez; or if Jabez were so\nimportant that it was worth while to interrupt the genealogies to furnish\ntwo derivations of his name, why are we not told more about him? Who was\nhe, when and where did he live, and at whose expense were his possessions\nenlarged and pasture provided for him? Everything that could give colour\nand interest to the narrative is withheld, and we are merely told that he\nprayed for earthly blessing and obtained it. The spiritual lesson is\nobvious, but it is very frequently enforced and illustrated in the Old\nTestament. Why should this episode about an utterly unknown man be thrust\nby main force into an unsuitable context, if it is only one example of a\nmost familiar truth? It has been pointed out that Jacob vowed a similar\nvow and built an altar to El, the God of Israel(84); but this is one of\nmany coincidences. The paragraph certainly tells us something about the\nchronicler\u2019s views on prayer, but nothing that is not more forcibly stated\nand exemplified in many other passages; it is mainly interesting to us\nbecause of the light it throws on his methods of composition. Elsewhere he\nembodies portions of well-known works and apparently assumes that his\nreaders are sufficiently versed in them to be able to understand the point\nof his extracts. Probably Jabez was so familiar to the chronicler\u2019s\nimmediate circle that he can take for granted that a few lines will\nsuffice to recall all the circumstances to a reader.\n\nWe have next a series of much more definite statements about Israelite\nprowess and success in wars against Moab and other enemies.\n\nIn iv. 21, 22, we read, \u201cThe sons of Shelah the son of Judah: Er the\nfather of Lecah, and Laadah the father of Mareshah, and the families of\nthe house of them that wrought fine linen, of the house of Ashbea; and\nJokim, and the men of Cozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had dominion in\nMoab and returned to Bethlehem.\u201d(85) Here again the information is too\nvague to enable us to fix any date, nor is it quite certain who had\ndominion in Moab. The verb \u201chad dominion\u201d is plural in Hebrew, and may\nrefer to all or any of the sons of Shelah. But, in spite of uncertainties,\nit is interesting to find chiefs or clans of Judah ruling in Moab.\nPossibly this immigration took place when David conquered and partly\ndepopulated the country. The men of Judah may have returned to Bethlehem\nwhen Moab passed to the northern kingdom at the disruption, or when Moab\nregained its independence.\n\nThe incident in iv. 34-43 differs from the preceding in having a definite\ndate assigned to it. In the time of Hezekiah some Simeonite clans had\nlargely increased in number and found themselves straitened for room for\ntheir flocks. They accordingly went in search of new pasturage. One\ncompany went to Gedor, another to Mount Seir.\n\nThe situation of Gedor is not clearly known. It cannot be the Gedor of\nJosh. xv. 58, which lay in the heart of Judah. The LXX. has Gerar, a town\nto the south of Gaza, and this may be the right reading; but whether we\nread Gedor or Gerar, the scene of the invasion will be in the country\nsouth of Judah. Here the children of Simeon found what they wanted, \u201cfat\npasture, and good,\u201d and abundant, for \u201cthe land was wide.\u201d There was the\nadditional advantage that the inhabitants were harmless and inoffensive\nand fell an easy prey to their invaders: \u201cThe land was quiet and\npeaceable, for they that dwelt there aforetime were of Ham.\u201d As Ham in the\ngenealogies is the father of Cainan, these peaceable folk would be\nCainanites; and among them were a people called Meunim, probably not\nconnected with any of the Maons mentioned in the Old Testament, but with\nsome other town or district of the same name. So \u201cthese written by name\ncame in the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah, and smote their tents, and\nthe Meunim that were found there, and devoted them to destruction as\naccursed, so that none are left unto this day. And the Simeonites dwelt in\ntheir stead.\u201d(86)\n\n                  \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThen follows in the simplest and most unconscious way the only\njustification that is offered for the behaviour of the invaders: \u201cbecause\nthere was pasture there for their flocks.\u201d The narrative takes for\ngranted\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe good old rule, the simple plan,\n    That they should take who have the power,\n    And they should keep who can.\u201d\n\n\nThe expedition to Mount Seir appears to have been a sequel to the attack\non Gedor. Five hundred of the victors emigrated into Edom, and smote the\nremnant of the Amalekites who had survived the massacre under Saul(87);\n\u201cand they also dwelt there unto this day.\u201d\n\nIn substance, style, and ideas this passage closely resembles the books of\nJoshua and Judges, where the phrase \u201cunto this day\u201d frequently occurs.\nHere, of course, the \u201cday\u201d in question is the time of the chronicler\u2019s\nauthority. When Chronicles was written the Simeonites in Gedor and Mount\nSeir had long ago shared the fate of their victims.\n\nThe conquest of Gedor reminds us how in the early days of the Israelite\noccupation of Palestine \u201cJudah went with Simeon his brother into the same\nsouthern lands,\u201d and they smote the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and\ndevoted them to destruction as accursed(88); and how the house of Joseph\ntook Bethel by treachery.(89) But the closest parallel is the Danite\nconquest of Laish.(90) The Danite spies said that the people of Laish\n\u201cdwelt in security, after the manner of the Zidonians, quiet and secure,\u201d\nharmless and inoffensive, like the Gedorites. Nor were they likely to\nreceive succour from the powerful city of Zidon or from other allies, for\n\u201cthey were far from the Zidonians, and had no dealings with any man.\u201d\nAccordingly, having observed the prosperous but defenceless position of\nthis peaceable people, they returned and reported to their brethren,\n\u201cArise, and let us go up against them, for we have seen the land, and,\nbehold, it is very good; and are ye still? Be not slothful to go and to\nenter in to possess the land. When ye go, ye shall come unto a people\nsecure, and the land,\u201d like that of Gedor, \u201cis large, for God hath given\nit into your hand, a place where there is no want of anything that is in\nthe earth.\u201d\n\nThe moral of these incidents is obvious. When a prosperous people is\npeaceable and defenceless, it is a clear sign that God has delivered them\ninto the hand of any warlike and enterprising nation that knows how to use\nits opportunities. The chronicler, however, is not responsible for this\nmorality, but he does not feel compelled to make any protest against the\nethical views of his source. There is a refreshing frankness about these\nancient narratives. The wolf devours the lamb without inventing any flimsy\npretext about troubled waters.\n\nBut in criticising these Hebrew clans who lived in the dawn of history and\nreligion we condemn ourselves. If we make adequate allowance for the\ninfluence of Christ, and the New Testament, and centuries of Christian\nteaching, Simeon and Dan do not compare unfavourably with modern nations.\nAs we review the wars of Christendom, we shall often be puzzled to find\nany ground for the outbreak of hostilities other than the defencelessness\nof the weaker combatant. The Spanish conquest of America and the English\nconquest of India afford examples of the treatment of weaker races which\nfairly rank with those of the Old Testament. Even to-day the independence\nof the smaller European states is mainly guaranteed by the jealousies of\nthe Great Powers. Still there has been progress in international morality;\nwe have got at last to the stage of \u00c6sop\u2019s fable. Public opinion condemns\nwanton aggression against a weak state; and the stronger power employs the\nresources of civilised diplomacy in showing that not only the absent, but\nalso the helpless, are always wrong. There has also been a substantial\nadvance in humanity towards conquered peoples. Christian warfare even\nsince the Middle Ages has been stained with the horrors of the Thirty\nYears\u2019 War and many other barbarities; the treatment of the American\nIndians by settlers has often been cruel and unjust; but no civilised\nnation would now systematically massacre men, women, and children in cold\nblood. We are thankful for any progress towards better things, but we\ncannot feel that men have yet realised that Christ has a message for\nnations as well as for individuals. As His disciples we can only pray more\nearnestly that the kingdoms of the earth may in deed and truth become the\nkingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ.\n\nThe next incident is more honourable to the Israelites. \u201cThe sons of\nReuben, and the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh\u201d did not merely\nsurprise and slaughter quiet and peaceable people: they conquered\nformidable enemies in fair fight.(91) There are two separate accounts of a\nwar with the Hagrites, one appended to the genealogy of Reuben and one to\nthat of Gad. The former is very brief and general, comprising nothing but\na bare statement that there was a successful war and a consequent\nappropriation of territory. Probably the two paragraphs are different\nforms of the same narrative, derived by the chronicler from independent\nsources. We may therefore confine our attention to the more detailed\naccount.\n\nHere, as elsewhere, these Transjordanic tribes are spoken of as\n\u201cvaliant(92) men,\u201d \u201cmen able to bear buckler and sword and to shoot with\nthe bow, and skilful in war.\u201d Their numbers were considerable. While five\nhundred Simeonites were enough to destroy the Amalekites on Mount Seir,\nthese eastern tribes mustered \u201cforty and four thousand seven hundred and\nthreescore that were able to go forth to war.\u201d Their enemies were not\n\u201cquiet and peaceable people,\u201d but the wild Bedouin of the desert, \u201cthe\nHagrites, with Jetur and Naphish and Nodab.\u201d Nodab is mentioned only here;\nJetur and Naphish occur together in the lists of the sons of Ishmael.(93)\nItur\u00e6a probably derived its name from the tribe of Jetur. The Hagrites or\nHagarenes were Arabs closely connected with the Ishmaelites, and they seem\nto have taken their name from Hagar. In Psalm lxxxiii. 6-8 we find a\nsimilar confederacy on a larger scale:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites,\n    Moab and the Hagarenes\n    Gebal and Ammon and Amalek,\n    Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre,\n    Assyria also is joined with them;\n    They have holpen the children of Lot.\u201d\n\n\nThere could be no question of unprovoked aggression against these children\nof Ishmael, that \u201cwild ass of a man, whose hand was against every man, and\nevery man\u2019s hand against him.\u201d(94) The narrative implies that the\nIsraelites were the aggressors, but to attack the robber tribes of the\ndesert would be as much an act of self-defence as to destroy a hornet\u2019s\nnest. We may be quite sure that when Reuben and Gad marched eastward they\nhad heavy losses to retrieve and bitter wrongs to avenge. We might find a\nparallel in the campaigns by which robber tribes are punished for their\nraids within our Indian frontier, only we must remember that Reuben and\nGad were not very much more law-abiding or unselfish than their Arab\nneighbours. They were not engaged in maintaining a _pax Britannica_ for\nthe benefit of subject nations; they were carrying on a struggle for\nexistence with persistent and relentless foes. Another partial parallel\nwould be the border feuds on the Northumbrian marches, when\u2014\n\n\n    \u201c... over border, dale, and fell\n    Full wide and far was terror spread;\n    For pathless marsh and mountain cell\n    The peasant left his lowly shed:\n    The frightened flocks and herds were pent\n    Beneath the peel\u2019s rude battlement,\n    And maids and matrons dropped the tear\n    While ready warriors seized the spear;\n    ... the watchman\u2019s eye\n    Dun wreaths of distant smoke can spy.\u201d(95)\n\n\nBut the Israelite expedition was on a larger scale than any \u201cwarden raid,\u201d\nand Eastern passions are fiercer and shriller than those sung by the Last\nMinstrel: the maids and matrons of the desert would shriek and wail\ninstead of \u201cdropping a tear.\u201d\n\nIn this great raid of ancient times \u201cthe war was of God,\u201d not, as at\nLaish, because God found for them helpless and easy victims, but because\nHe helped them in a desperate struggle. When the fierce Israelite and Arab\nborderers joined battle, the issue was at first doubtful; and then \u201cthey\ncried to God, and He was entreated of them, because they put their trust\nin Him,\u201d \u201cand they were helped against\u201d their enemies; \u201cand the Hagrites\nwere delivered into their hand, and all that were with them, and there\nfell many slain, because the war was of God\u201d; \u201cand they took away their\ncattle: of their camels fifty thousand, and of sheep two hundred and fifty\nthousand, and of asses two thousand, and of slaves a hundred thousand.\u201d\n\u201cAnd they dwelt in their stead until the captivity.\u201d\n\nThis \u201ccaptivity\u201d is the subject of another short note. The chronicler\napparently was anxious to distribute his historical narratives equally\namong the tribes. The genealogies of Reuben and Gad each conclude with a\nnotice of a war, and a similar account follows that of Eastern\nManasseh:\u2014\u201cAnd they trespassed against the God of their fathers, and went\na-whoring after the gods of the peoples of the land, whom God destroyed\nbefore them. And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul, king of\nAssyria, and the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser, king of Assyria, and he\ncarried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the\nhalf-tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara,\nand to the river of Gozan, unto this day.\u201d(96) And this war also was \u201cof\nGod.\u201d Doubtless the descendants of the surviving Hagrites and Ishmaelites\nwere among the allies of the Assyrian king, and saw in the ruin of Eastern\nIsrael a retribution for the sufferings of their own people; but the later\nJews and probably the exiles in \u201cHalah, Habor, and Hara,\u201d and by \u201cthe\nriver of Gozan,\u201d far away in North-eastern Mesopotamia, found the cause of\ntheir sufferings in too great an intimacy with their heathen neighbours:\nthey had gone a-whoring after their gods.\n\nThe last two incidents which we shall deal with in this chapter serve to\nillustrate afresh the rough-and-ready methods by which the chronicler has\nknotted together threads of heterogeneous tradition into one tangled\nskein. We shall see further how ready ancient writers were to represent a\ntribe by the ancestor from whom it traced its descent. We read in vii. 20,\n21, \u201cThe sons of Ephraim: Shuthelah, and Bered his son, and Tahath his\nson, and Eleadah his son, and Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his son, and\nEzer and Elead, whom the men of Gath that were born in the land slew,\nbecause they came down to take away their cattle.\u201d\n\nEzer and Elead are apparently brothers of the second Shuthelah; at any\nrate, as six generations are mentioned between them and Ephraim, they\nwould seem to have lived long after the Patriarch. Moreover, they came\ndown to Gath, so that they must have lived in some hill-country not far\noff, presumably the hill-country of Ephraim. But in the next two verses\n(22 and 23) we read, \u201cAnd Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his\nbrethren came to comfort him. And he went in to his wife, and she\nconceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Beriah, because it went\nevil with his house.\u201d\n\nTaking these words literally, Ezer and Elead were the actual sons of\nEphraim; and as Ephraim and his family were born in Egypt and lived there\nall their days, these patriarchal cattle-lifters did not come down from\nany neighbouring highlands, but must have come up from Egypt, all the way\nfrom the land of Goshen, across the desert and past several Philistine and\nCanaanite towns. This literal sense is simply impossible. The author from\nwhom the chronicler borrowed this narrative is clearly using a natural and\nbeautiful figure to describe the distress in the tribe of Ephraim when two\nof its clans were cut off, and the fact that a new clan named _Beriah_ was\nformed to take their place. Possibly we are not without information as to\nhow this new clan arose. In viii. 13 we read of two Benjamites, \u201c_Beriah_\nand Shema, who were heads of fathers\u2019 houses of the inhabitants of\nAijalon, who put to flight the inhabitants of Gath.\u201d Beriah and Shema\nprobably, coming to the aid of Ephraim, avenged the defeat of Ezer and\nElead; and in return received the possessions of the clans, who had been\ncut off, and Beriah was thus reckoned among the children of Ephraim.(97)\n\nThe language of ver. 22 is very similar to that of Gen. xxxvii. 34, 35:\n\u201cAnd Jacob mourned for his son many days. And all his sons and all his\ndaughters rose up to comfort him\u201d; and the personification of the tribe\nunder the name of its ancestor may be paralleled from Judges xxi. 6: \u201cAnd\nthe children of Israel repented them for Benjamin their brother.\u201d\n\nLet us now reconstruct the story and consider its significance. Two\nEphraimite clans, Ezer and Elead, set out to drive the cattle \u201cof the men\nof Gath, who were born in the land,\u201d _i.e._, of the aboriginal Avvites,\nwho had been dispossessed by the Philistines, but still retained some of\nthe pasture-lands. Falling into an ambush or taken by surprise when\nencumbered with their plunder, the Ephraimites were cut off, and nearly\nall the fighting men of the clans perished. The Avvites, reinforced by the\nPhilistines of Gath, pressed their advantage, and invaded the territory of\nEphraim, whose border districts, stripped of their defenders, lay at the\nmercy of the conquerors. From this danger they were rescued by the\nBenjamite clans Shema and Beriah, then occupying Aijalon(98); and the men\nof Gath in their turn were defeated and driven back. The grateful\nEphraimites invited their allies to occupy the vacant territory and in all\nprobability to marry the widows and daughters of their slaughtered\nkinsmen. From that time onwards Beriah was reckoned as one of the clans of\nEphraim.\n\nThe account of this memorable cattle foray is a necessary note to the\ngenealogies to explain the origin of an important clan and its double\nconnection with Ephraim and Benjamin. Both the chronicler and his\nauthority recorded it because of its genealogical significance, not\nbecause they were anxious to perpetuate the memory of the unfortunate\nraid. In the ancient days to which the episode belonged, a frontier cattle\nforay seemed as natural and meritorious an enterprise as it did to William\nof Deloraine. The chronicler does not think it necessary to signify any\ndisapproval it is by no means certain that he did disapprove\u2014of such\nspoiling of the uncircumcised; but the fact that he gives the record\nwithout comment does not show that he condoned cattle-stealing. Men to-day\nrelate with pride the lawless deeds of noble ancestors, but they would be\ndismayed if their own sons proposed to adopt the moral code of medi\u00e6val\nbarons or Elizabethan buccaneers.\n\nIn reviewing the scanty religious ideas involved in this little group of\nfamily traditions, we have to remember that they belong to a period of\nIsraelite history much older than that of the chronicler; in estimating\ntheir value, we have to make large allowance for the conventional ethics\nof the times. Religion not only serves to raise the standard of morality,\nbut also to keep the average man up to the conventional standard; it helps\nand encourages him to do what he believes to be right as well as gives him\na better understanding of what right means. Primitive religion is not to\nbe disparaged because it did not at once convert the rough Israelite\nclansmen into Havelocks and Gordons. In those early days, courage,\npatriotism, and loyalty to one\u2019s tribesmen were the most necessary and\napproved virtues. They were fostered and stimulated by the current belief\nin a God of battles, who gave victory to His faithful people. Moreover,\nthe idea of Deity implied in these traditions, though inadequate, is by no\nmeans unworthy. God is benevolent; He enriches and succours His people; He\nanswers prayer, giving to Jabez the land and pasture for which he asked.\nHe is a righteous God; He responds to and justifies His people\u2019s faith:\n\u201cHe was entreated of the Reubenites and Gadites because they put their\ntrust in Him.\u201d On the other hand, He is a jealous God; He punishes Israel\nwhen they \u201ctrespass against the God of their fathers and go a-whoring\nafter the gods of the peoples of the land.\u201d But the feeling here\nattributed to Jehovah is not merely one of personal jealousy. Loyalty to\nHim meant a great deal more than a preference for a god called Jehovah\nover a god called Chemosh. It involved a special recognition of morality\nand purity, and gave a religious sanction to patriotism and the sentiment\nof national unity. Worship of Moabite or Syrian gods weakened a man\u2019s\nenthusiasm for Israel and his sense of fellowship with his countrymen,\njust as allegiance to an Italian prince and prelate has seemed to\nProtestants to deprive the Romanist of his full inheritance in English\nlife and feeling. He who went astray after other gods did not merely\nindulge his individual taste in doctrine and ritual: he was a traitor to\nthe social order, to the prosperity and national union, of Israel. Such\ndisloyalty broke up the nation, and sent Israel and Judah into captivity\npiecemeal.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V. The Jewish Community In The Time Of The Chronicler.\n\n\nWe have already referred to the light thrown by Chronicles on this\nsubject. Besides the direct information given in Ezra and Nehemiah, and\nsometimes in Chronicles itself, the chronicler by describing the past in\nterms of the present often unconsciously helps us to reconstruct the\npicture of his own day. We shall have to make occasional reference to the\nbooks of Ezra and Nehemiah, but the age of the chronicler is later than\nthe events which they describe, and we shall be traversing different\nground from that covered by the volume of the \u201cExpositor\u2019s Bible\u201d which\ndeals with them.\n\nChronicles is full of evidence that the civil and ecclesiastical system of\nthe Pentateuch had become fully established long before the chronicler\nwrote. Its gradual origin had been forgotten, and it was assumed that the\nLaw in its final and complete form had been known and observed from the\ntime of David onwards. At every stage of the history Levites are\nintroduced, occupying the subordinate position and discharging the menial\nduties assigned to them by the latest documents of the Pentateuch. In\nother matters small and great, especially those concerning the Temple and\nits sanctity, the chronicler shows himself so familiar with the Law that\nhe could not imagine Israel without it. Picture the life of Judah as we\nfind it in 2 Kings and the prophecies of the eighth century, put this\npicture side by side with another of the Judaism of the New Testament, and\nremember that Chronicles is about a century nearer to the latter than to\nthe former. It is not difficult to trace the effect of this absorption in\nthe system of the Pentateuch. The community in and about Jerusalem had\nbecome a Church, and was in possession of a Bible. But the hardening,\ndespiritualising processes which created later Judaism were already at\nwork. A building, a system of ritual, and a set of officials were coming\nto be regarded as the essential elements of the Church. The Bible was\nimportant partly because it dealt with these essential elements, partly\nbecause it provided a series of regulations about washings and meats, and\nthus enabled the layman to exalt his everyday life into a round of\nceremonial observances. The habit of using the Pentateuch chiefly as a\nhandbook of external and technical ritual seriously influenced the current\ninterpretation of the Bible. It naturally led to a hard literalism and a\ndisingenuous exegesis. This interest in externals is patent enough in the\nchronicler, and the tendencies of Biblical exegesis are illustrated by his\nuse of Samuel and Kings. On the other hand, we must allow for great\ndevelopment of this process in the interval between Chronicles and the New\nTestament. The evils of later Judaism were yet far from mature, and\nreligious life and thought in Palestine were still much more elastic than\nthey became later on.\n\nWe have also to remember that at this period the zealous observers of the\nLaw can only have formed a portion of the community, corresponding roughly\nto the regular attendants at public worship in a Christian country. Beyond\nand beneath the pious legalists were \u201cthe people of the land,\u201d those who\nwere too careless or too busy to attend to ceremonial; but for both\nclasses the popular and prominent ideal of religion was made up of a\nmagnificent building, a dignified and wealthy clergy, and an elaborate\nritual, alike for great public functions and for the minuti\u00e6 of daily\nlife.\n\nBesides all these the Jewish community had its sacred writings. As one of\nthe ministers of the Temple, and, moreover, both a student of the national\nliterature and himself an author, the chronicler represents the best\nliterary knowledge of contemporary Palestinian Judaism; and his somewhat\nmechanical methods of composition make it easy for us to discern his\nindebtedness to older writers. We turn his pages with interest to learn\nwhat books were known and read by the most cultured Jews of his time.\nFirst and foremost, and overshadowing all the rest, there appears the\nPentateuch. Then there is the whole array of earlier Historical Books:\nJoshua, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings. The plan of Chronicles excludes a direct\nuse of Judges, but it must have been well known to our author. His\nappreciation of the Psalms is shown by his inserting in his history of\nDavid a cento of passages from Psalms xcvi., cv., and cvi.; on the other\nhand, Psalm xviii. and other lyrics given in the books of Samuel are\nomitted by the chronicler. The later Exilic Psalms were more to his taste\nthan ancient hymns, and he unconsciously carries back into the history of\nthe monarchy the poetry as well as the ritual of later times. Both\nomissions and insertions indicate that in this period the Jews possessed\nand prized a large collection of psalms.\n\nThere are also traces of the Prophets. Hanani the seer in his address to\nAsa(99) quotes Zech. iv. 10: \u201cThe eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro\nthrough the whole earth.\u201d Jehoshaphat\u2019s exhortation to his people,\n\u201cBelieve in the Lord your God; so shall ye be established,\u201d(100) is based\non Isa. vii. 9: \u201cIf ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be\nestablished.\u201d Hezekiah\u2019s words to the Levites, \u201cOur fathers ... have\nturned away their faces from the habitation of the Lord, and turned their\nbacks,\u201d(101) are a significant variation of Jer. ii. 27: \u201cThey have turned\ntheir back unto Me, and not their face.\u201d The Temple is substituted for\nJehovah.\n\nThere are of course references to Isaiah and Jeremiah and traces of other\nprophets; but when account is taken of them all, it is seen that the\nchronicler makes scanty use, on the whole, of the Prophetical Books. It is\ntrue that the idea of illustrating and supplementing information derived\nfrom annals by means of contemporary literature not in narrative form had\nnot yet dawned upon historians; but if the chronicler had taken a tithe of\nthe interest in the Prophets that he took in the Pentateuch and the\nPsalms, his work would show many more distinct marks of their influence.\n\nAn apocalypse like Daniel and works like Job, Proverbs, and the other\nbooks of Wisdom lay so far outside the plan and subject of Chronicles that\nwe can scarcely consider the absence of any clear trace of them a proof\nthat the chronicler did not either know them or care for them.\n\nOur brief review suggests that the literary concern of the chronicler and\nhis circle was chiefly in the books most closely connected with the\nTemple; viz., the Historical Books, which contained its history, the\nPentateuch, which prescribed its ritual, and the Psalms, which served as\nits liturgy. The Prophets occupy a secondary place, and Chronicles\nfurnishes no clear evidence as to other Old Testament books.\n\nWe also find in Chronicles that the Hebrew language had degenerated from\nits ancient classical purity, and that Jewish writers had already come\nvery much under the influence of Aramaic.\n\nWe may next consider the evidence supplied by the chronicler as to the\nelements and distribution of the Jewish community in his time. In Ezra and\nNehemiah we find the returning exiles divided into the men of Judah, the\nmen of Benjamin, and the priests, Levites, etc. In Ezra ii. we are told\nthat in all there returned 42,360, with 7,337 slaves and 200 \u201csinging men\nand singing women.\u201d The priests numbered 4,289; there were 74 Levites, 128\nsingers of the children of Asaph, 139 porters, and 392 Nethinim and\nchildren of Solomon\u2019s servants. The singers, porters, Nethinim, and\nchildren of Solomon\u2019s servants are not reckoned among the Levites, and\nthere is only one guild of singers: \u201cthe children of Asaph.\u201d The Nethinim\nare still distinguished from the Levites in the list of those who returned\nwith Ezra, and in various lists which occur in Nehemiah. We see from the\nLevitical genealogies and the Levites in 1 Chron. vi., ix., etc, that in\nthe time of the chronicler these arrangements had been altered. There were\nnow three guilds of singers, tracing their descent to Heman, Asaph, and\nEthan(102) or Jeduthun, and reckoned by descent among the Levites. The\nguild of Heman seems to have been also known as \u201cthe sons of Korah.\u201d(103)\nThe porters and probably eventually the Nethinim were also reckoned among\nthe Levites.(104)\n\nWe see therefore that in the interval between Nehemiah and the chronicler\nthe inferior ranks of the Temple ministry had been reorganised, the\nmusical staff had been enlarged and doubtless otherwise improved, and the\nsingers, porters, Nethinim, and other Temple servants had been promoted to\nthe position of Levites. Under the monarchy many of the Temple servants\nhad been slaves of foreign birth; but now a sacred character was given to\nthe humblest menial who shared in the work of the house of God. In\nafter-times Herod the Great had a number of priests trained as masons, in\norder that no profane hand might take part in the building of his temple.\n\nSome details have been preserved of the organisation of the Levites. We\nread how the porters were distributed among the different gates, and of\nLevites who were over the chambers and the treasuries, and of other\nLevites how\u2014\n\n\u201cThey lodged round about the house of God, because the charge was upon\nthem, and to them pertained the opening thereof morning by morning.\n\n\u201cAnd certain of them had charge of the vessels of service; for by tale\nwere they brought in, and by tale were they taken out.\n\n\u201cSome of them also were appointed over the furniture, and over all the\nvessels of the sanctuary, and over the fine flour, and the wine, and the\noil, and the frankincense, and the spices.\n\n\u201cAnd some of the sons of the priests prepared the confection of the\nspices.\n\n\u201cAnd Mattithiah, one of the Levites who was the first-born of Shallum the\nKorahite, had the set office over the things that were baked in pans.\n\n\u201cAnd some of their brethren, of the sons of the Kohathites, were over the\nshewbread to prepare it every sabbath.\u201d(105)\n\nThis account is found in a chapter partly identical with Neh. xi., and\napparently refers to the period of Nehemiah; but the picture in the latter\npart of the chapter was probably drawn by the chronicler from his own\nknowledge of Temple routine. So, too, in his graphic accounts of the\nsacrifices by Hezekiah and Josiah,(106) we seem to have an eyewitness\ndescribing familiar scenes. Doubtless the chronicler himself had often\nbeen one of the Temple choir \u201cwhen the burnt-offering began, and the song\nof Jehovah began also, together with the instruments of David, king of\nIsrael; and all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the\ntrumpeters sounded; and all this continued till the burnt-offering was\nfinished.\u201d(107) Still the scale of these sacrifices, the hundreds of oxen\nand thousands of sheep, may have been fixed to accord with the splendour\nof the ancient kings. Such profusion of victims probably represented\nrather the dreams than the realities of the chronicler\u2019s Temple.\n\nOur author\u2019s strong feeling for his own Levitical order shows itself in\nhis narrative of Hezekiah\u2019s great sacrifices. The victims were so numerous\nthat there were not priests enough to flay them; to meet the emergency the\nLevites were allowed on this one occasion to discharge a priestly function\nand to take an unusually conspicuous part in the national festival. In\nzeal they were even superior to the priests: \u201cThe Levites were more\nupright in heart to sanctify themselves than the priests.\u201d Possibly here\nthe chronicler is describing an incident which he could have paralleled\nfrom his own experience. The priests of his time may often have yielded to\na natural temptation to shirk the laborious and disagreeable parts of\ntheir duty; they would catch at any plausible pretext to transfer their\nburdens to the Levites, which the latter would be eager to accept for the\nsake of a temporary accession of dignity. Learned Jews were always experts\nin the art of evading the most rigid and minute regulations of the Law.\nFor instance, the period of service appointed for the Levites in the\nPentateuch was from the age of thirty to that of fifty.(108) But we gather\nfrom Ezra and Nehemiah that comparatively few Levites could be induced to\nthrow in their lot with the returning exiles; there were not enough to\nperform the necessary duties. To make up for paucity of numbers, this\nperiod of service was increased; and they were required to serve from\ntwenty years old and upward.(109) As the former arrangement had formed\npart of the law attributed to Moses, in course of time the later\ninnovation was supposed to have originated with David.\n\nThere were, too, other reasons for increasing the efficiency of the\nLevitical order by lengthening their term of service and adding to their\nnumbers. The establishment of the Pentateuch as the sacred code of Judaism\nimposed new duties on priests and Levites alike. The people needed\nteachers and interpreters of the numerous minute and complicated rules by\nwhich they were to govern their daily life. Judges were needed to apply\nthe laws in civil and criminal cases. The Temple ministers were the\nnatural authorities on the Torah; they had a chief interest in expounding\nand enforcing it. But in these matters also the priests seem to have left\nthe new duties to the Levites. Apparently the first \u201cscribes,\u201d or\nprofessional students of the Law, were mainly Levites. There were priests\namong them, notably the great father of the order, \u201cEzra the priest the\nscribe,\u201d but the priestly families took little share in this new work. The\norigin of the educational and judicial functions of the Levites had also\ncome to be ascribed to the great kings of Judah. A Levitical scribe is\nmentioned in the time of David.(110) In the account of Josiah\u2019s reign we\nare expressly told that \u201cof the Levites there were scribes, and officers,\nand porters\u201d; and they are described as \u201cthe Levites that taught all\nIsrael.\u201d(111) In the same context we have the traditional authority and\njustification for this new departure. One of the chief duties imposed upon\nthe Levites by the Law was the care and carriage of the Tabernacle and its\nfurniture during the wanderings in the wilderness. Josiah, however, bids\nthe Levites \u201cput the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David,\nking of Israel, did build; there shall no more be a burden upon your\nshoulders; now serve the Lord your God and His people Israel.\u201d(112) In\nother words, \u201cYou are relieved of a large part of your old duties, and\ntherefore have time to undertake new ones.\u201d The immediate application of\nthis principle seems to be that a section of the Levites should do all the\nmenial work of the sacrifices, and so leave the priests, and singers, and\nporters free for their own special service; but the same argument would be\nfound convenient and conclusive whenever the priests desired to impose any\nnew functions on the Levites.\n\nStill the task of expounding and enforcing the Law brought with it\ncompensations in the shape of dignity, influence, and emolument; and the\nLevites would soon be reconciled to their work as scribes, and would\ndiscover with regret that they could not retain the exposition of the Law\nin their own hands. Traditions were cherished in certain Levitical\nfamilies that their ancestors had been \u201cofficers and judges\u201d under\nDavid(113); and it was believed that Jehoshaphat had organised a\ncommission largely composed of Levites to expound and administer the Law\nin country districts.(114) This commission consisted of five princes, nine\nLevites, and two priests; \u201cand they taught in Judah, having the book of\nthe law of the Lord with them; and they went about throughout all the\ncities of Judah and taught among the people.\u201d As the subject of their\nteaching was the Pentateuch, their mission must have been rather judicial\nthan religious. With regard to a later passage, it has been suggested that\n\u201cprobably it is the organisation of justice as existing in his own day\nthat he\u201d (the chronicler) \u201chere carries back to Jehoshaphat, so that here\nmost likely we have the oldest testimony to the synedrium of Jerusalem as\na court of highest instance over the provincial synedria, as also to its\ncomposition and presidency.\u201d(115) We can scarcely doubt that the form the\nchronicler has given to the tradition is derived from the institutions of\nhis own age, and that his friends the Levites were prominent among the\ndoctors of the Law, and not only taught and judged in Jerusalem, but also\nvisited the country districts.\n\nIt will appear from this brief survey that the Levites were very\ncompletely organised. There were not only the great classes, the scribes,\nofficers, porters, singers, and the Levites proper, so to speak, who\nassisted the priests, but special families had been made responsible for\ndetails of service: \u201cMattithiah had the set office over the things that\nwere baked in pans; and some of their brethren, of the sons of the\nKohathites, were over the shewbread, to prepare it every sabbath.\u201d(116)\n\nThe priests were organised quite differently. The small number of Levites\nnecessitated careful arrangements for using them to the best advantage; of\npriests there were enough and to spare. The four thousand two hundred and\neighty-nine priests who returned with Zerubbabel were an extravagant and\nimpossible allowance for a single temple, and we are told that the numbers\nincreased largely as time went on. The problem was to devise some means by\nwhich all the priests should have some share in the honours and emoluments\nof the Temple, and its solution was found in the \u201ccourses.\u201d The priests\nwho returned with Zerubbabel are registered in four families: \u201cthe\nchildren of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua; ... the children of Immer;\n... the children of Pashhur; ... the children of Harim.\u201d(117) But the\norganisation of the chronicler\u2019s time is, as usual, to be found among the\narrangements ascribed to David, who is said to have divided the priests\ninto their twenty-four courses.(118) Amongst the heads of the courses we\nfind Jedaiah, Jeshua, Harim, and Immer, but not Pashhur. Post-Biblical\nauthorities mention twenty-four courses in connection with the second\nTemple. Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, belonged to the course\nof Abijah(119); and Josephus mentions a course \u201cEniakim.\u201d(120) Abijah was\nthe head of one of David\u2019s courses; and Eniakim is almost certainly a\ncorruption of Eliakim, of which name Jakim in Chronicles is a contraction.\n\nThese twenty-four courses discharged the priestly duties each in its turn.\nOne was busy at the temple while the other twenty-three were at home, some\nperhaps living on the profits of their office, others at work on their\nfarms. The high-priest, of course, was always at the Temple; and the\ncontinuity of the ritual would necessitate the appointment of other\npriests as a permanent staff. The high-priest and the staff, being always\non the spot, would have great opportunities for improving their own\nposition at the expense of the other members of the courses, who were only\nthere occasionally for a short time. Accordingly we are told later on that\na few families had appropriated nearly all the priestly emoluments.\n\nCourses of the Levites are sometimes mentioned in connection with those of\nthe priests, as if the Levites had an exactly similar organisation.(121)\nIndeed, twenty-four courses of the singers are expressly named.(122) But\non examination we find that \u201ccourse\u201d for the Levites in all cases where\nexact information is given(123) does not mean one of a number of divisions\nwhich took work in turn, but a division to which a definite piece of work\nwas assigned, _e.g._, the care of the shewbread or of one of the gates.\nThe idea that in ancient times there were twenty-four alternating courses\nof Levites was not derived from the arrangements of the chronicler\u2019s age,\nbut was an inference from the existence of priestly courses. According to\nthe current interpretation of the older history, there must have been\nunder the monarchy a very great many more Levites than priests, and any\nreasons that existed for organising twenty-four priestly courses would\napply with equal force to the Levites. It is true that the names of\ntwenty-four courses of singers are given, but in this list occurs the\nremarkable and impossible group of names already discussed:\u2014\n\n\u201c_I-have-magnified_, _I-have-exalted-help_; _Sitting-in-distress_,\n_I-have-spoken_ _In-abundance Visions_\u201d(124) which are in themselves\nsufficient proof that these twenty-four courses of singers did not exist\nin the time of the chronicler.\n\nThus the chronicler provides material for a fairly complete account of the\nservice and ministers of the Temple; but his interest in other matters was\nless close and personal, so that he gives us comparatively little\ninformation about civil persons and affairs. The restored Jewish community\nwas, of course, made up of descendants of the members of the old kingdom\nof Judah. The new Jewish state, like the old, is often spoken of as\n\u201cJudah\u201d; but its claim to fully represent the chosen people of Jehovah is\nexpressed by the frequent use of the name \u201cIsrael.\u201d Yet within this new\nJudah the old tribes of Judah and Benjamin are still recognised. It is\ntrue that in the register of the first company of returning exiles the\ntribes are ignored, and we are not told which families belonged to Judah\nor which to Benjamin; but we are previously told that the chiefs of Judah\nand Benjamin rose up to return to Jerusalem. Part of this register\narranges the companies according to the towns in which their ancestors had\nlived before the Captivity, and of these some belong to Judah and some to\nBenjamin. We also learn that the Jewish community included certain of the\nchildren of Ephraim and Manasseh.(125) There may also have been families\nfrom the other tribes; St. Luke, for instance, describes Anna as of the\ntribe of Asher.(126) But the mass of genealogical matter relating to Judah\nand Benjamin far exceeds what is given as to the other tribes,(127) and\nproves that Judah and Benjamin were co-ordinate members of the restored\ncommunity, and that no other tribe contributed any appreciable contingent,\nexcept a few families from Ephraim and Manasseh. It has been suggested\nthat the chronicler shows special interest in the tribes which had\noccupied Galilee\u2014Asher, Naphtali, Zebulun, and Issachar\u2014and that this\nspecial interest indicates that the settlement of Jews in Galilee had\nattained considerable dimensions at the time when he wrote. But this\nspecial interest is not very manifest; and later on, in the time of the\nMaccabees, the Jews in Galilee were so few that Simon took them all away\nwith him, together with their wives and their children and all that they\nhad, and brought them into Jud\u00e6a.\n\nThe genealogies seem to imply that no descendants of the Transjordanic\ntribes or of Simeon were found in Judah in the age of the chronicler.\n\nConcerning the tribe of Judah, we have already noted that it included two\nfamilies which traced their descent to Egyptian ancestors, and that the\nKenizzite clans of Caleb and Jerahmeel had been entirely incorporated in\nJudah and formed the most important part of the tribe. A comparison of the\nparallel genealogies of the house of Caleb gives us important information\nas to the territory occupied by the Jews. In ii. 42-49 we find the\nCalebites at Hebron and other towns of the south country, in accordance\nwith the older history; but in ii. 50-55 they occupy Bethlehem and\nKirjath-jearim and other towns in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The two\nparagraphs are really giving their territory before and after the Exile;\nduring the Captivity Southern Judah had been occupied by the Edomites. It\nis indeed stated in Neh. xi. 25-30 that the children of Judah dwelt in a\nnumber of towns scattered over the whole territory of the ancient tribe;\nbut the list concludes with the significant sentence, \u201cSo they _encamped_\nfrom Beer-sheba unto the valley of Hinnom.\u201d We are thus given to\nunderstand that the occupation was not permanent.\n\nWe have already noted that much of the space allotted to the genealogies\nof Judah is devoted to the house of David.(128) The form of this pedigree\nfor the generations after the Captivity indicates that the head of the\nhouse of David was no longer the chief of the state. During the monarchy\nonly the kings are given as heads of the family in each generation:\n\u201cSolomon\u2019s son was Rehoboam, Abijah his son, Asa his son,\u201d etc., etc.; but\nafter the Captivity the first-born no longer occupied so unique a\nposition. We have all the sons of each successive head of the family.\n\nThe genealogies of Judah include one or two references which throw a\nlittle light on the social organisation of the times. There were \u201cfamilies\nof scribes which dwelt at Jabez\u201d(129) as well as the Levitical scribes. In\nthe appendix(130) to the genealogies of chap. iv. we read of a house whose\nfamilies wrought fine linen, and of other families who were porters to the\nking and lived on the royal estates. The immediate reference of these\nstatements is clearly to the monarchy, and we are told that \u201cthe records\nare ancient\u201d; but these ancient records were probably obtained by the\nchronicler from contemporary members of the families, who still pursued\ntheir hereditary calling.\n\nAs regards the tribe of Benjamin, we have seen that there was a family\nclaiming descent from Saul.\n\nThe slight and meagre information given about Judah and Benjamin cannot\naccurately represent their importance as compared with the priests and\nLevites, but the general impression conveyed by the chronicler is\nconfirmed by our other authorities. In his time the supreme interests of\nthe Jews were religious. The one great institution was the Temple; the\nhighest order was the priesthood. All Jews were in a measure servants of\nthe Temple; Ephesus indeed was proud to be called the temple-keeper of the\ngreat Diana, but Jerusalem was far more truly the temple-keeper of\nJehovah. Devotion to the Temple gave to the Jews a unity which neither of\nthe older Hebrew states had ever possessed. The kernel of this later\nJewish territory seems to have been a comparatively small district of\nwhich Jerusalem was the centre. The inhabitants of this district carefully\npreserved the records of their family history, and loved to trace their\ndescent to the ancient clans of Judah and Benjamin; but for practical\npurposes they were all Jews, without distinction of tribe. Even the\nministry of the Temple had become more homogeneous; the non-Levitical\ndescent of some classes of the Temple servants was first ignored and then\nforgotten, so that assistants at the sacrifices, singers, musicians,\nscribes, and porters, were all included in the tribe of Levi. The Temple\nconferred its own sanctity upon all its ministers.\n\nIn a previous chapter the Temple and its ministry were compared to a\nmedi\u00e6val monastery or the establishment of a modern cathedral. In the same\nway Jerusalem might be compared to cities, like Ely or Canterbury, which\nexist mainly for the sake of their cathedrals, only both the sanctuary and\ncity of the Jews came to be on a larger scale. Or, again, if the Temple be\nrepresented by the great abbey of St. Edmundsbury, Bury St. Edmunds itself\nmight stand for Jerusalem, and the wide lands of the abbey for the\nsurrounding districts, from which the Jewish priests derived their\nfree-will offerings, and first-fruits, and tithes. Still in both these\nEnglish instances there was a vigorous and independent secular life far\nbeyond any that existed in Jud\u00e6a.\n\nA closer parallel to the temple on Zion is to be found in the immense\nestablishments of the Egyptian temples. It is true that these were\nnumerous in Egypt, and the authority and influence of the priesthood were\nchecked and controlled by the power of the kings; yet on the fall of the\ntwentieth dynasty the high-priest of the great temple of Amen at Thebes\nsucceeded in making himself king, and Egypt, like Judah, had its dynasty\nof priest-kings.\n\nThe following is an account of the possessions of the Theban temple of\nAmen, supposed to be given by an Egyptian living about B.C. 1350(131):\u2014\n\n\u201cSince the accession of the eighteenth dynasty, Amen has profited more\nthan any other god, perhaps even more than Pharaoh himself, by the\nEgyptian victories over the peoples of Syria and Ethiopia. Each success\nhas brought him a considerable share of the spoil collected upon the\nbattle-fields, indemnities levied from the enemy, prisoners carried into\nslavery. He possesses lands and gardens by the hundred in Thebes and the\nrest of Egypt, fields and meadows, woods, hunting-grounds, and fisheries;\nhe has colonies in Ethiopia or in the oases of the Libyan desert, and at\nthe extremity of the land of Canaan there are cities under vassalage to\nhim, for Pharaoh allows him to receive the tribute from them. The\nadministration of these vast properties requires as many officials and\ndepartments as that of a kingdom. It includes innumerable bailiffs for the\nagriculture; overseers for the cattle and poultry; treasurers of twenty\nkinds for the gold, silver, and copper, the vases and valuable stuffs;\nforemen for the workshops and manufactures; engineers; architects;\nboatmen; a fleet and an army which often fight by the side of Pharaoh\u2019s\nfleet and army. It is really a state within the state.\u201d\n\nMany of the details of this picture would not be true for the temple of\nZion; but the Jews were even more devoted to Jehovah than the Thebans to\nAmen, and the administration of the Jewish temple was more than \u201ca state\nwithin the state\u201d: it was the state itself.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI. Teaching By Anachronism. 1 Chron. ix. (cf. xv., xvi.,\nxxiii.-xxvii., etc.).\n\n\n    \u201cAnd David the king said, ... Who then offereth willingly?... And\n    they gave for the service of the house of God ... ten thousand\n    darics.\u201d\u20141 CHRON. xxix. 1, 5, 7.\n\n\nTeaching by anachronism is a very common and effective form of religious\ninstruction; and Chronicles, as the best Scriptural example of this\nmethod, affords a good opportunity for its discussion and illustration.\n\nAll history is more or less guilty of anachronism; every historian\nperforce imports some of the ideas and circumstances of his own time into\nhis narratives and pictures of the past: but we may distinguish three\ndegrees of anachronism. Some writers or speakers make little or no attempt\nat arch\u00e6ological accuracy; others temper the generally anachronistic\ncharacter of their compositions by occasional reference to the manners and\ncustoms of the period they are describing; and, again, there are a few\ntrained students who succeed in drawing fairly accurate and consistent\npictures of ancient life and history.\n\nWe will briefly consider the last two classes before returning to the\nfirst, in which we are chiefly interested.\n\nAccurate arch\u00e6ology is, of course, part of the ideal of the scientific\nhistorian. By long and careful study of literature and monuments and by\nthe exercise of a lively and well-trained imagination, the student obtains\na vision of ancient societies. Nineveh and Babylon, Thebes and Memphis,\nrise from their ashes and stand before him in all their former splendour;\nhe walks their streets and mixes with the crowds in the market-place and\nthe throng of worshippers at the temple, each \u201cin his habit as he lived.\u201d\nRameses and Sennacherib, Ptolemy and Antiochus, all play their proper\nparts in this drama of his fancy. He can not only recall their costumes\nand features: he can even think their thoughts and feel their emotions; he\nactually lives in the past. In _Marius the Epicurean_, in Ebers\u2019s _Uarda_,\nin Maspero\u2019s _Sketches of Assyrian and Egyptian Life_, and in other more\nserious works we have some of the fruits of this enlightened study of\nantiquity, and are enabled to see the visions at second hand and in some\nmeasure to live at once in the present and the past, to illustrate and\ninterpret the one by the other, to measure progress and decay, and to\nunderstand the Divine meaning of all history. Our more recent histories\nand works on life and manners and even our historical romances, especially\nthose of Walter Scott, have rendered a similar service to students of\nEnglish history. And yet at its very best such realisation of the past is\nimperfect; the gaps in our information are unconsciously filled in from\nour experience, and the ideas of the present always colour our\nreproduction of ancient thought and feeling. The most accurate history is\nonly a rough approximation to exact truth; but, like many other rough\napproximations, it is exact enough for many important practical purposes.\n\nBut scholarly familiarity with the past has its drawbacks. The scholar may\ncome to live so much amongst ancient memories that he loses touch with his\nown present. He may gain large stores of information about ancient\nIsraelite life, and yet not know enough of his own generation to be able\nto make them sharers of his knowledge. Their living needs and\ncircumstances lie outside his practical experience; he cannot explain the\npast to them because he does not sympathise with their present; he cannot\napply its lessons to difficulties and dangers which he does not\nunderstand.\n\nNor is the usefulness of the arch\u00e6ologist merely limited by his own lack\nof sympathy and experience. He may have both, and yet find that there are\nfew of his contemporaries who can follow him in his excursions into bygone\ntime. These limitations and drawbacks do not seriously diminish the value\nof arch\u00e6ology, but they have to be taken into account in discussing\nteaching by anachronism, and they have an important bearing on the\npractical application of arch\u00e6ological knowledge. We shall return to these\npoints later on.\n\nThe second degree of anachronism is very common. We are constantly hearing\nand reading descriptions of Bible scenes and events in which the centuries\nbefore and after Christ are most oddly blended. Here and there will be a\ncostume after an ancient monument, a Biblical description of Jewish\ncustoms, a few Scriptural phrases; but these are embedded in paragraphs\nwhich simply reproduce the social and religious ideas of the nineteenth\ncentury. For instance, in a recent work, amidst much display of\narch\u00e6ological knowledge, we have the very modern ideas that Joseph and\nMary went up to Bethlehem at the census, because Joseph and perhaps Mary\nalso had property in Bethlehem, and that when Joseph died \u201che left her a\nsmall but independent fortune.\u201d Many modern books might be named in which\nPatriarchs and Apostles hold the language and express the sentiments of\nthe most recent schools of devotional Christianity; and yet an air of\nhistorical accuracy is assumed by occasional touches of arch\u00e6ology.\nSimilarly in medi\u00e6val miracle-plays characters from the Bible appeared in\nthe dress of the period, and uttered a grotesque mixture of Scriptural\nphrases and vernacular jargon. Much of such work as this may for all\npractical purposes be classed under the third degree of anachronism.\nSometimes, however, the spiritual significance of a passage or an incident\nturns upon a simple explanation of some ancient custom, so that the\narch\u00e6ological detail makes a clear addition to its interest and\ninstructiveness. But in other cases a little arch\u00e6ology is a dangerous\nthing. Scattered fragments of learned information do not enable the reader\nin any way to revive the buried past; they only remove the whole subject\nfurther from his interest and sympathy. He is not reading about his own\nday, nor does he understand that the events and personages of the\nnarrative ever had anything in common with himself and his experience. The\nantique garb, the strange custom, the unusual phrase, disguise that real\nhumanity which the reader shares with these ancient worthies. They are no\nlonger men of like passions with himself, and he finds neither warning nor\nencouragement in their story. He is like a spectator of a drama played by\npoor actors with a limited stock of properties. The scenery and dresses\nshow that the play does not belong to his own time, but they fail to\nsuggest that it ever belonged to any period. He has a languid interest in\nthe performance as a spectacle, but his feelings are not touched, and he\nis never carried away by the acting.\n\nWe have laid so much stress on the drawbacks attaching to a little\narch\u00e6ology because they will emphasise what we have to say about the use\nof pure anachronism. Our last illustration, however, reminds us that these\ndrawbacks detract but little from the influence of earnest men. If the\nacting be good, we forget the scenery and costumes; the genius of a great\npreacher more than atones for poor arch\u00e6ology, because, in spite of dress\nand custom, he makes his hearers feel that the characters of the Bible\nwere instinct with rich and passionate life. We thus arrive at our third\ndegree of pure anachronism.\n\nMost people read their Bible without any reference to arch\u00e6ology. If they\ndramatise the stories, they do so in terms of their own experience. The\ncharacters are dressed like the men and women they know: Nazareth is like\ntheir native village, and Jerusalem is like the county town; the\nconversations are carried on in the English of the Authorised Version.\nThis reading of Scripture is well illustrated by the description in a\nrecent writer of a modern prophet in Tennessee(132):\u2014\n\n\u201cThere was nought in the scene to suggest to a mind familiar with the\nfacts an Oriental landscape\u2014nought akin to the hills of Jud\u00e6a. It was\nessentially of the New World, essentially of the Great Smoky Mountains.\nYet ignorance has its licence. It never occurred to Teck Jepson that his\nBible heroes had lived elsewhere. Their history had to him an intimate\npersonal relation, as of the story of an ancestor, in the homestead ways\nand closely familiar. He brooded upon these narratives, instinct with\ndramatic interest, enriched with poetic colour, and localised in his\nrobust imagination, till he could trace Hagar\u2019s wild wanderings in the\nfastnesses, could show where Jacob slept and piled his altar of stones,\ncould distinguish the bush, of all others on the \u2018bald,\u2019 that blazed with\nfire from heaven when the angel of the Lord stood within it. Somehow, even\nin their grotesque variation, they lost no dignity in their transmission\nto the modern conditions of his fancy. Did the facts lack significance\nbecause it was along the gullied red clay roads of Piomingo Cove that he\nsaw David, the smiling stripling, running and holding high in his hand the\nbit of cloth cut from Saul\u2019s garments while the king had slept in a cave\nat the base of Chilhowie Mountain? And how was the splendid miracle of\ntranslation discredited because Jepson believed that the chariot of the\nLord had rested in scarlet and purple clouds upon the towering summit of\nThunderhead, that Elijah might thence ascend into heaven?\u201d\n\nAnother and more familiar example of \u201csingular alterations in date and\ncircumstances\u201d is the version in _Ivanhoe_ of the war between Benjamin and\nthe other tribes:\u2014\n\n\u201cHow long since in Palestine a deadly feud arose between the tribe of\nBenjamin and the rest of the Israelitish nation; and how they cut to\npieces well-nigh all the chivalry of that tribe; and how they swore by our\nblessed Lady that they would not permit those who remained to marry in\ntheir lineage; and how they became grieved for their vow, and sent to\nconsult his Holiness the Pope how they might be absolved from it; and how,\nby the advice of the Holy Father, the youth of the tribe of Benjamin\ncarried off from a superb tournament all the ladies who were there\npresent, and thus won them wives without the consent either of their\nbrides or their brides\u2019 families.\u201d\n\nIt is needless to say that the chronicler was not thus hopelessly at sea\nabout the circumstances of ancient Hebrew history; but he wrote in the\nsame simple, straightforward, childlike spirit. Israel had always been the\nIsrael of his own experience, and it never occurred to him that its\ninstitutions under the kings had been other than those with which he was\nfamiliar. He had no more hesitation in filling up the gaps in the book of\nKings from what he saw round about him than a painter would have in\nputting the white clouds and blue waters of to-day into a picture of skies\nand seas a thousand years ago. He attributes to the pious kings of Judah\nthe observance of the ritual of his own times. Their prophets use phrases\ntaken from post-Exilic writings. David is regarded as the author of the\nexisting ecclesiastical system in almost all matters that do not date back\nto Moses, and especially as the organiser of the familiar music of the\nTemple. David\u2019s choristers sing the hymns of the second Temple. Amongst\nthe contributions of his nobles towards the building of the Temple, we\nread of ten thousand darics, the daric being a coin introduced by the\nPersian king Darius.\n\nBut we must be careful to recognise that the chronicler writes in perfect\ngood faith. These views of the monarchy were common to all educated and\nthoughtful men of his time; they were embodied in current tradition, and\nwere probably already to be met with in writing. To charge him with\ninventing them is absurd; they already existed, and did not need to be\ninvented. He cannot have coloured his narrative in the interests of the\nTemple and the priesthood. When he lived, these interests were guaranteed\nby ancient custom and by the authoritative sanction of the Pentateuchal\nLaw. The chronicler does not write with the strong feeling of a man who\nmaintains a doubtful cause; there is no hint of any alternative view which\nneeds to be disproved and rejected in favour of his own. He expatiates on\nhis favourite themes with happy, leisurely serenity, and is evidently\nconfident that his treatment of them will meet with general and cordial\napproval.\n\nAnd doubtless the author of Chronicles \u201cserved his own generation by the\nwill of God,\u201d and served them in the way he intended. He made the history\nof the monarchy more real and living to them, and enabled them to\nunderstand better that the reforming kings of Judah were loyal servants of\nJehovah and had been used by Him for the furtherance of true religion. The\npictures drawn by Samuel and Kings of David and the best of his successors\nwould not have enabled the Jews of his time to appreciate these facts.\nThey had no idea of any piety that was not expressed in the current\nobservances of the Law, and Samuel and Kings did not ascribe such\nobservances to the earlier kings of Judah. But the chronicler and his\nauthorities were able to discern in the ancient Scriptures the genuine\npiety of David and Hezekiah and other kings, and drew what seemed to them\nthe obvious conclusion that these pious kings observed the Law. They then\nproceeded to rewrite the history in order that the true character of the\nkings and their relation to Jehovah might be made intelligible to the\npeople. The only piety which the chronicler could conceive was combined\nwith observance of the Law; naturally therefore it was only thus that he\ncould describe piety. His work would be read with eager interest, and\nwould play a definite and useful part in the religious education of the\npeople. It would bring home to them, as the older histories could not, the\nabiding presence of Jehovah with Israel and its leaders. Chronicles\ninterpreted history to its own generation by translating older records\ninto the circumstances and ideas of its own time.\n\nAnd in this it remains our example. Chronicles may fall very far short of\nthe ideal and yet be superior to more accurate histories which fail to\nmake themselves intelligible to their own generation. The ideal history no\ndoubt would tell the story with arch\u00e6ological precision, and then\ninterpret it by modern parallels; the historian would show us what we\nshould actually have seen and heard if we had lived in the period he is\ndescribing; he would also help our weak imagination by pointing us to such\nmodern events or persons as best illustrate those ancient times. No doubt\nChronicles fails to bring before our eyes an accurate vision of the\nhistory of the monarchy; but, as we have said, all history fails somewhat\nin this respect. It is simply impossible to fulfil the demand for history\nthat shall have the accuracy of an architect\u2019s plans of a house or an\nastronomer\u2019s diagrams of the orbit of a planet. Chronicles, however, fails\nmore seriously than most history, and on the whole rather more than most\ncommentaries and sermons.\n\nBut this lack of arch\u00e6ological accuracy is far less serious than a failure\nto make it clear that the events of ancient history were as real and as\ninteresting as those of modern times, and that its personages were actual\nmen and women, with a full equipment of body, mind, and soul. There have\nbeen many teachers and preachers, innocent of arch\u00e6ology, who have yet\nbeen able to apply Bible narratives with convincing power to the hearts\nand consciences of their hearers. They may have missed some points and\nmisunderstood others, but they have brought out clearly the main,\npractical teaching of their subject; and we must not allow amusement at\ncurious anachronisms to blind us to their great gifts in applying ancient\nhistory to modern circumstances. For instance, the little captive maid in\nthe story of Naaman has been described by a local preacher as having\nilluminated texts hung up in her bedroom, and (perambulators not being\nthen in use) as having constructed a go-cart for the baby out of an old\ntea-chest and four cotton reels. We feel inclined to smile; but, after\nall, such a picture would make children feel that the captive maid was a\ngirl whom they could understand and might even imitate. A more correct\nversion of the story, told with less human interest, might leave the\nimpression that she was a mere animated doll in a quaint costume, who made\nimpossibly pious remarks.\n\nEnlightened and well-informed Christian teachers may still learn something\nfrom the example of the chronicler. The uncritical character of his age\naffords no excuse to them for shutting their eyes to the fuller light\nwhich God has given to their generation. But we are reminded that\npermanently significant stories have their parallels in every age. There\nare always prodigal sons, and foolish virgins, importunate widows, and\ngood Samaritans. The ancient narratives are interesting as quaint and\npicturesque stories of former times; but it is our duty as teachers to\ndiscover the modern parallels of their eternal meaning: their lessons are\noften best enforced by telling them afresh as they would have been told if\ntheir authors had lived in our time, in other words by a frank use of\nanachronism.\n\nIt may be objected that the result in the case of Chronicles is not\nencouraging. Chronicles is far less interesting than Kings, and far less\nuseful in furnishing materials for the historian. These facts, however,\nare not inconsistent with the usefulness of the book for its own age.\nTeaching by anachronism simply seeks to render a service to its own\ngeneration; its purpose is didactic, and not historical. How many people\nread the sermons of eighteenth-century divines? But each generation has a\nright to this special service. The first duty of the religious teacher is\nfor the men and women that look to him for spiritual help and guidance. He\nmay incidentally produce literary work of permanent value for posterity;\nbut a Church whose ministry sacrificed practical usefulness in the attempt\nto be learned and literary would be false to its most sacred functions.\nThe noblest self-denial of Christian service may often lie in putting\naside all such ambition and devoting the ability which might have made a\nsuccessful author to making Divine truth intelligible and interesting to\nthe uncultured and the unimaginative. Authors themselves are sometimes led\nto make a similar sacrifice; they write to help the many to-day when they\nmight have written to delight men of literary taste in all ages. Few\nthings are so ephemeral as popular religious literature; it is as quickly\nand entirely forgotten as last year\u2019s sunsets: but it is as necessary and\nas useful as the sunshine and the clouds, which are being always spent and\nalways renewed. Chronicles is a specimen of this class of literature, and\nits presence in the canon testifies to the duty of providing a special\napplication of the sacred truths of ancient history for each succeeding\ngeneration.\n\n\n\n\n\nBOOK III. MESSIANIC AND OTHER TYPES.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I. Teaching By Types.\n\n\nA more serious charge has been brought against Chronicles than that dealt\nwith in the last chapter. Besides anachronisms, additions, and\nalterations, the chronicler has made omissions that give an entirely new\ncomplexion to the history. He omits, for instance, almost everything that\ndetracts from the character and achievements of David and Solomon; he\nalmost entirely ignores the reigns of Saul and Ishbosheth, and of all the\nnorthern kings. These facts are obvious to the most casual reader, and a\nmoment\u2019s reflection shows that David as we should know him if we had only\nChronicles is entirely different from the historical David of Samuel and\nKings. The latter David has noble qualities, but displays great weakness\nand falls into grievous sin; the David of Chronicles is almost always an\nhero and a blameless saint.\n\nAll this is unquestionably true, and yet the purpose and spirit of\nChronicles are honest and praiseworthy. Our judgment must be governed by\nthe relation which the chronicler intended his work to sustain towards the\nolder history. Did he hope that Samuel and Kings would be altogether\nsuperseded by this new version of the history of the monarchy, and so\neventually be suppressed and forgotten? There were precedents that might\nhave encouraged such a hope. The Pentateuch and the books from Joshua to\nKings derived their material from older works; but the older works were\nsuperseded by these books, and entirely disappeared. The circumstances,\nhowever, were different when the chronicler wrote: Samuel and Kings had\nbeen established for centuries. Moreover, the Jewish community in Babylon\nstill exercised great influence over the Palestinian Jews. Copies of\nSamuel and Kings must have been preserved at Babylon, and their possessors\ncould not be eager to destroy them, and then to incur the expense of\nreplacing them by copies of a history written at Jerusalem from the point\nof view of the priests and Levites. We may therefore put aside the theory\nthat Chronicles was intended altogether to supersede Samuel and Kings.\nAnother possible theory is that the chronicler, after the manner of\nmedi\u00e6val historians, composed an abstract of the history of the world from\nthe Creation to the Captivity as an introduction to his account in Ezra\nand Nehemiah of the more recent post-Exilic period. This theory has some\ntruth in it, but does not explain the fact that Chronicles is\ndisproportionately long if it be merely such an introduction. Probably the\nchronicler\u2019s main object was to compose a text-book, which could safely\nand usefully be placed in the hands of the common people. There were\nobvious objections to the popular use of Samuel and Kings. In making a\nselection from his material, the chronicler had no intention of falsifying\nhistory. Scholars, he knew, would be acquainted with the older books, and\ncould supplement his narrative from the sources which he himself had used.\nIn his own work he was anxious to confine himself to the portions of the\nhistory which had an obvious religious significance, and could readily be\nused for purposes of edification. He was only applying more thoroughly a\nprinciple that had guided his predecessors. The Pentateuch itself is the\nresult of a similar selection, only there and in the other earlier\nhistories a very human interest in dramatic narrative has sometimes\ninterfered with an exclusive attention to edification.\n\nIndeed, the principles of selection adopted by the chronicler are common\nto many historians. A school history does not dwell on the domestic vices\nof kings or on the private failings of statesmen. It requires no great\nstretch of imagination to conceive of a Royalist history of England, that\nshould entirely ignore the Commonwealth. Indeed, historians of Christian\nmissions sometimes show about the same interest in the work of other\nChurches than their own that Chronicles takes in the northern kingdom. The\nwork of the chronicler may also be compared to monographs which confine\nthemselves to some special aspect of their subject. We have every reason\nto be thankful that the Divine providence has preserved for us the richer\nand fuller narrative of Samuel and Kings, but we cannot blame the\nchronicler because he has observed some of the ordinary canons for the\ncomposition of historical text-books.\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s selective method, however, is carried so far that the\nhistorical value of his work is seriously impaired; yet in this respect\nalso he is kept in countenance by very respectable authorities. We are\nmore concerned, however, to point out the positive results of the method.\nInstead of historical portraits, we are presented with a gallery of\nideals, types of character which we are asked either to admire or to\ncondemn. On the one hand, we have David and Solomon, Jehoshaphat and\nHezekiah, and the rest of the reforming kings of Judah; on the other hand,\nthere are Jeroboam, and Ahab, and Ahaz, the kings of Israel, and the bad\nkings of Judah. All these are very sharply defined in either white or\nblack. The types of Chronicles are ideals, and not studies of ordinary\nhuman character, with its mingled motives and subtle gradations of light\nand shade. The chronicler has nothing in common with the authors of modern\nrealistic novels or anecdotal memoirs. His subject is not human nature as\nit is so much as human nature as it ought to be. There is obviously much\nto be learnt from such ideal pictures, and this form of inspired teaching\nis by no means the least effective; it may be roughly compared with our\nLord\u2019s method of teaching by parables, without, however, at all putting\nthe two upon the same level.\n\nBefore examining these types in detail, we may devote a little space to\nsome general considerations upon teaching by types. For the present we\nwill confine ourselves to a non-theological sense of type, using the word\nto mean any individual who is representative or typical of a class. But\nthe chronicler\u2019s individuals do not represent classes of actual persons,\nbut good men as they seem to their most devoted admirers and bad men as\nthey seem to their worst enemies. They are ideal types. Chronicles is not\nthe only literature in which such ideal types are found. They occur in the\nfuneral sermons and obituary notices of popular favourites, and in the\npictures which politicians draw in election speeches of their opponents,\nonly in these there is a note of personal feeling from which the\nchronicler is free.\n\nIn fact, all biography tends to idealise; human nature as it is has\ngenerally to be looked for in the pages of fiction. When we have been\nblessed with a good and brave man, we wish to think of him at his best; we\nare not anxious to have thrust upon our notice the weaknesses and sins\nwhich he regretted and for the most part controlled. Some one who loved\nand honoured him is asked to write the biography, with a tacit\nunderstanding that he is not to give us a picture of the real man in the\n_d\u00e9shabille_, as it were, of his own inner consciousness. He is to paint\nus a portrait of the man as he strove to fashion himself after his own\nhigh ideal. The true man, as God knows him and as his fellows should\nremember him, was the man in his higher nature and nobler aspirations. The\nrest, surely, was but the vanishing remnant of a repudiated self. The\nbiographer idealises, because he believes that the ideal best represents\nthe real man. This is what the chronicler, with a large faith and liberal\ncharity, has done for David and Solomon.\n\nSuch an ideal picture appeals to us with pathetic emphasis. It seems to\nsay, \u201cIn spite of temptation, and sin, and grievous falls, this is what I\never aimed at and desired to be. Do not thou content thyself with any\nlower ideal. My higher nature had its achievements as well as its\naspirations. Remember that in thy weakness thou mayest also achieve.\u201d\n\n\n    \u201cWhat I aspired to be,\n    And was not, comforts me;\n\n    All I could never be,\n    All men ignored in me,\n    This I was worth to God....\u201d\n\n\nBut we may take these ideals as types, not only in a general sense, but\nalso in a modification of the dogmatic meaning of the word. We are not\nconcerned here with the type as the mere external symbol of truth yet to\nbe revealed; such types are chiefly found in the ritual of the Pentateuch.\nThe circumstances of a man\u2019s life may also serve as a type in the narrower\nsense, but we venture to apply the theological idea of type to the\nsignificance of the higher nature in a good man. It has been said in\nreference to types in the theological sense that \u201ca type is neither a\nprophecy, nor a symbol, nor an allegory, yet it has relations with each of\nthese. A prophecy is a prediction in words, a type a prediction in things.\nA symbol is a sensuous representation of a thing; a type is such a\nrepresentation having a distinctly predictive aspect: ... a type is an\nenacted prophecy, a kind of prophecy by action.\u201d(133) We cannot, of\ncourse, include in our use of the term type \u201csensuous representation\u201d and\nsome other ideas connected with \u201ctype\u201d in a theological sense. Our type is\na prediction in persons rather than in things. But the use of the term is\njustified as including the most essential point: that \u201ca type is an\nenacted prophecy, a kind of prophecy by action.\u201d These personal types are\nthe most real and significant; they have no mere arbitrary or conventional\nrelation to their antitype. The enacted prophecy is the beginning of its\nown fulfilment, the first-fruits of the greater harvest that is to be. The\nbetter moments of the man who is hungering and thirsting after\nrighteousness are a type, a promise, and prophecy of his future\nsatisfaction. They have also a wider and deeper meaning: they show what is\npossible for humanity, and give an assurance of the spiritual progress of\nthe world. The elect remnant of Israel were the type of the great\nChristian Church; the spiritual aspirations and persistent faith of a few\nbelievers were a prophecy that \u201cthe earth should be full of the knowledge\nof the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.\u201d \u201cThe kingdom of heaven is like\nunto a grain of mustard seed, ... which is less than all seeds; but when\nit is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and becometh a tree.\u201d When\ntherefore the chronicler ignores the evil in David and Solomon and only\nrecords the good, he treats them as types. He takes what was best in them\nand sets it forth as a standard and prophecy for the future, a pattern in\nthe mount to be realised hereafter in the structure of God\u2019s spiritual\ntemple upon earth.\n\nBut the Holy Spirit guided the hopes and intuitions of the sacred writers\nto a special fulfilment. We can see that their types have one antitype in\nthe growth of the Church and the progress of mankind; but the Old\nTestament looked for their chief fulfilment in a Divine Messenger and\nDeliverer: its ideals are types of the Messiah. The higher life of a good\nman was a revelation of God and a promise of His highest and best\nmanifestation in Christ. We shall endeavour to show in subsequent chapters\nhow Chronicles served to develop the idea of the Messiah.\n\nBut the chronicler\u2019s types are not all prophecies of future progress or\nMessianic glory. The brighter portions of his picture are thrown into\nrelief by a dark background. The good in Jeroboam is as completely ignored\nas the evil in David. Apart from any question of historical accuracy, the\ntype is unfortunately a true one. There is a leaven of the Pharisees and\nof Herod, as well as a leaven of the kingdom. If the base leaven be left\nto work by itself, it will leaven the whole mass; and in a final estimate\nof the character of those who do evil \u201cwith both hands earnestly,\u201d little\nallowance needs to be made for redeeming features. Even if we are still\nable to believe that there is a seed of goodness in things evil, we are\nforced to admit that the seed has remained dead and unfertilised, has had\nno growth and borne no fruit. But probably most men may sometimes be\nprofitably admonished by considering the typical sinner\u2014the man in whose\nnature evil has been able to subdue all things to itself.\n\nThe strange power of teaching by types has been well expressed by one who\nwas herself a great mistress of the art: \u201cIdeas are often poor ghosts: our\nsun-filled eyes cannot discern them; they pass athwart us in thin vapour,\nand cannot make themselves felt; they breathe upon us with warm breath,\nthey touch us with soft, responsive hands; they look at us with sad,\nsincere eyes, and speak to us in appealing tones; they are clothed in a\nliving human soul; ... their presence is a power.\u201d(134)\n\n\n\n\nChapter II. David\u2014I. His Tribe And Dynasty.\n\n\nKing and kingdom were so bound up in ancient life that an ideal for the\none implied an ideal for the other; all distinction and glory possessed by\neither was shared by both. The tribe and kingdom of Judah were exalted by\nthe fame of David and Solomon; but, on the other hand, a specially exalted\nposition is accorded to David in the Old Testament because he is the\nrepresentative of the people of Jehovah. David himself had been anointed\nby Divine command to be king of Israel, and he thus became the founder of\nthe only legitimate dynasty of Hebrew kings. Saul and Ishbosheth had no\nsignificance for the later religious history of the nation. Apparently to\nthe chronicler the history of true religion in Israel was a blank between\nJoshua and David; the revival began when the Ark was brought to Zion, and\nthe first steps were taken to rear the Temple in succession to the Mosaic\ntabernacle. He therefore omits the history of the Judges and Saul. But the\nbattle of Gilboa is given to introduce the reign of David, and incidental\ncondemnation is passed on Saul: \u201cSo Saul died for his trespass which he\ncommitted against the Lord, because of the word of the Lord, which he kept\nnot, and also for that he asked counsel of one that had a familiar spirit,\nto inquire thereby, and inquired not of the Lord; therefore He slew him\nand turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.\u201d\n\nThe reign of Saul had been an unsuccessful experiment; its only real value\nhad been to prepare the way for David. At the same time the portrait of\nSaul is not given at full length, like those of the wicked kings, partly\nperhaps because the chronicler had little interest for anything before the\ntime of David and the Temple, but partly, we may hope, because the record\nof David\u2019s affection for Saul kept alive a kindly feeling towards the\nfounder of the monarchy.\n\nInasmuch as Jehovah had \u201cturned the kingdom unto David,\u201d the reign of\nIshbosheth was evidently the intrusion of an illegitimate pretender; and\nthe chronicler treats it as such. If we had only Chronicles, we should\nknow nothing about the reign of Ishbosheth, and should suppose that, on\nthe death of Saul, David succeeded at once to an undisputed sovereignty\nover all Israel. The interval of conflict is ignored because, according to\nthe chronicler\u2019s views, David was, from the first, king _de jure_ over the\nwhole nation. Complete silence as to Ishbosheth was the most effective way\nof expressing this fact.\n\nThe same sentiment of hereditary legitimacy, the same formal and exclusive\nrecognition of a _de jure_ sovereign, has been shown in modern times by\ntitles like Louis XVIII. and Napoleon III. For both schools of Legitimists\nthe absence of _de facto_ sovereignty did not prevent Louis XVII. and\nNapoleon II. from having been lawful rulers of France. In Israel,\nmoreover, the Divine right of the one chosen dynasty had religious as well\nas political importance. We have already seen that Israel claimed a\nhereditary title to its special privileges; it was therefore natural that\na hereditary qualification should be thought necessary for the kings. They\nrepresented the nation; they were the Divinely appointed guardians of its\nreligion; they became in time the types of the Messiah, its promised\nSaviour. In all this Saul and Ishbosheth had neither part nor lot; the\npromise to Israel had always descended in a direct line, and the special\npromise that was given to its kings and through them to their people began\nwith David. There was no need to carry the history further back.\n\nWe have already noticed that, in spite of this general attitude towards\nSaul, the genealogy of some of his descendants is given twice over in the\nearlier chapters. No doubt the chronicler made this concession to gratify\nfriends or to conciliate an influential family. It is interesting to note\nhow personal feeling may interfere with the symmetrical development of a\ntheological theory. At the same time we are enabled to discern a practical\nreason for rigidly ignoring the kingship of Saul and Ishbosheth. To have\nrecognised Saul as the Lord\u2019s anointed, like David, would have complicated\ncontemporary dogmatics, and might possibly have given rise to jealousies\nbetween the descendants of Saul and those of David. Within the narrow\nlimits of the Jewish community such quarrels might have been inconvenient\nand even dangerous.\n\nThe reasons for denying the legitimacy of the northern kings were obvious\nand conclusive. Successful rebels who had destroyed the political and\nreligious unity of Israel could not inherit \u201cthe sure mercies of David\u201d or\nbe included in the covenant which secured the permanence of his dynasty.\n\nThe exclusive association of Messianic ideas with a single family\nemphasises their antiquity, continuity, and development. The hope of\nIsrael had its roots deep in the history of the people; it had grown with\ntheir growth and maintained itself through their changing fortunes. As the\nhope centred in a single family, men were led to expect an individual\npersonal Messiah; they were being prepared to see in Christ the fulfilment\nof all righteousness.\n\nBut the choice of the house of David involved the choice of the tribe of\nJudah and the rejection of the kingdom of Samaria. The ten tribes, as well\nas the kings of Israel, had cut themselves off both from the Temple and\nthe sacred dynasty, and therefore from the covenant into which Jehovah had\nentered with \u201cthe man after his own heart.\u201d Such a limitation of the\nchosen people was suggested by many precedents. Chronicles, following the\nPentateuch, tells how the call came to Abraham, but only some of the\ndescendants of one of his sons inherited the promise. Why should not a\nselection be made from among the sons of Jacob? But the twelve tribes had\nbeen explicitly and solemnly included in the unity of Israel, largely\nthrough David himself. The glory of David and Solomon consisted in their\nsovereignty over a united people. The national recollection of this golden\nage loved to dwell on the union of the twelve tribes. The Pentateuch added\nlegal sanction to ancient sentiment. The twelve tribes were associated\ntogether in national lyrics, like the \u201cBlessing of Jacob\u201d and the\n\u201cBlessing of Moses.\u201d The song of Deborah told how the northern tribes\n\u201ccame to the help of the Lord against the mighty.\u201d It was simply\nimpossible for the chronicler to absolutely repudiate the ten tribes; and\nso they are formally included in the genealogies of Israel, and are\nrecognised in the history of David and Solomon. Then the recognition\nstops. From the time of the disruption the northern kingdom is quietly but\npersistently ignored. Its prophets and sanctuaries were as illegitimate as\nits kings. The great struggle of Elijah and Elisha for the honour of\nJehovah is omitted, with all the rest of their history. Elijah is only\nmentioned as sending a letter to Jehoram, king of Judah; Elisha is never\neven named.\n\nOn the other hand, it is more than once implied that Judah, with the\nLevites, and the remnants of Simeon and Benjamin, are the true Israel.\nWhen Rehoboam \u201cwas strong he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel\nwith him.\u201d After Shishak\u2019s invasion, \u201cthe princes of Israel and the king\nhumbled themselves.\u201d(135) The annals of Manasseh, king of Judah, are said\nto be \u201cwritten among the acts of the kings of Israel.\u201d(136) The register\nof the exiles, who returned with Zerubbabel is headed \u201cThe number of the\nmen of the people of Israel.\u201d(137) The chronicler tacitly anticipates the\nposition of St. Paul: \u201cThey are not all Israel which are of Israel\u201d; and\nthe Apostle might have appealed to Chronicles to show that the majority of\nIsrael might fail to recognise and accept the Divine purpose for Israel,\nand that the true Israel would then be found in an elect remnant. The Jews\nof the second Temple naturally and inevitably came to ignore the ten\ntribes and to regard themselves as constituting this true Israel. As a\nmatter of history, there had been a period during which the prophets of\nSamaria were of far more importance to the religion of Jehovah than the\ntemple at Jerusalem; but in the chronicler\u2019s time the very existence of\nthe ten tribes was ancient history. Then, at any rate, it was true that\nGod\u2019s Israel was to be found in the Jewish community, at and around\nJerusalem. They inherited the religious spirit of their fathers, and\nreceived from them the sacred writings and traditions, and carried on the\nsacred ritual. They preserved the truth and transmitted it from generation\nto generation, till at last it was merged in the mightier stream of\nChristian revelation.\n\nThe attitude of the chronicler towards the prophets of the northern\nkingdom does not in any way represent the actual importance of these\nprophets to the religion of Israel; but it is a very striking expression\nof the fact that after the Captivity the ten tribes had long ceased to\nexercise any influence upon the spiritual life of their nation.\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s attitude is also open to criticism on another side. He is\ndominated by his own surroundings, and in his references to the Judaism of\nhis own time there is no formal recognition of the Jewish community in\nBabylon; and yet even his own casual allusions confirm what we know from\nother sources, namely that the wealth and learning of the Jews in Babylon\nwere an important factor in Judaism until a very late date. This point\nperhaps rather concerns Ezra and Nehemiah than Chronicles, but it is\nclosely connected with our present subject, and is most naturally treated\nalong with it. The chronicler might have justified himself by saying that\nthe true home of Israel must be in Palestine, and that a community in\nBabylon could only be considered as subsidiary to the nation in its own\nhome and worshipping at the Temple. Such a sentiment, at any rate, would\nhave met with universal approval amongst Palestinian Jews. The chronicler\nmight also have replied that the Jews in Babylon belonged to Judah and\nBenjamin and were sufficiently recognised in the general prominence give\nto these tribes. In all probability some Palestinian Jews would have been\nwilling to class their Babylonian kinsmen with the ten tribes. Voluntary\nexiles from the Temple, the Holy City, and the Land of Promise had in\ngreat measure cut themselves off from the full privileges of the people of\nJehovah. If, however, we had a Babylonian book of Chronicles, we should\nsee both Jerusalem and Babylon in another light.\n\nThe chronicler was possessed and inspired by the actual living present\nround about him; he was content to let the dead past bury its dead. He was\nprobably inclined to believe that the absent are mostly wrong, and that\nthe men who worked with him for the Lord and His temple were the true\nIsrael and the Church of God. He was enthusiastic in his own vocation and\nloyal to his brethren. If his interests were somewhat narrowed by the\nurgency of present circumstances, most men suffer from the same\nlimitations. Few Englishmen realise that the battle of Agincourt is part\nof the history of the United States, and that Canterbury Cathedral is a\nmonument of certain stages in the growth of the religion of New England.\nWe are not altogether willing to admit that these voluntary exiles from\nour Holy Land belong to the true Anglo-Saxon Israel.\n\nChurches are still apt to ignore their obligations to teachers who, like\nthe prophets of Samaria, seem to have been associated with alien or\nhostile branches of the family of God. A religious movement which fails to\nsecure for itself a permanent monument is usually labelled heresy. If it\nhas neither obtained recognition within the Church nor yet organised a\nsect for itself, its services are forgotten or denied. Even the orthodoxy\nof one generation is sometimes contemptuous of the older orthodoxy which\nmade it possible; and yet Gnostics, Arians and Athanasians, Arminians and\nCalvinists, have all done something to build up the temple of faith.\n\nThe nineteenth century prides itself on a more liberal spirit. But\nRomanist historians are not eager to acknowledge the debt of their Church\nto the Reformers; and there are Protestant partisans who deny that we are\nthe heirs of the Christian life and thought of the medi\u00e6val Church and are\nanxious to trace the genealogy of pure religion exclusively through a\nsupposed succession of obscure and half-mythical sects. Limitations like\nthose of the chronicler still narrow the sympathies of earnest and devout\nChristians.\n\nBut it is time to return to the more positive aspects of the teaching of\nChronicles, and to see how far we have already traced its exposition of\nthe Messianic idea. The plan of the book implies a spiritual claim on\nbehalf of the Jewish community of the Restoration. Because they believed\nin Jehovah, whose providence had in former times controlled the destinies\nof Israel, they returned to their ancestral home that they might serve and\nworship the God of their fathers. Their faith survived the ruin of Judah\nand their own captivity; they recognised the power, and wisdom, and love\nof God alike in the prosperity and in the misfortunes of their race. \u201cThey\nbelieved God, and it was counted unto them for righteousness.\u201d The great\nprophet of the Restoration had regarded this new Israel as itself a\nMessianic people, perhaps even \u201ca light to the Gentiles\u201d and \u201csalvation\nunto the ends of the earth.\u201d(138) The chronicler\u2019s hopes were more modest;\nthe new Jerusalem had been seen by the prophet as an ideal vision; the\nhistorian knew it by experience as an imperfect human society: but he\nbelieved none the less in its high spiritual vocation and prerogatives. He\nclaimed the future for those who were able to trace the hand of God in\ntheir past.\n\nUnder the monarchy the fortunes of Jerusalem had been bound up with those\nof the house of David. The chronicler brings out all that was best in the\nhistory of the ancient kings of Judah, that this ideal picture of the\nstate and its rulers might encourage and inspire to future hope and\neffort. The character and achievements of David and his successors were of\npermanent significance. The grace and favour accorded to them symbolised\nthe Divine promise for the future, and this promise was to be realised\nthrough a Son of David.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III. David\u2014II. His Personal History.\n\n\nIn order to understand why the chronicler entirely recasts the graphic and\ncandid history of David given in the book of Samuel, we have to consider\nthe place that David had come to fill in Jewish religion. It seems\nprobable that among the sources used by the author of the book of Samuel\nwas a history of David, written not long after his death, by some one\nfamiliar with the inner life of the court. \u201cNo one,\u201d says the proverb, \u201cis\nan hero to his valet\u201d; very much what a valet is to a private gentleman\ncourtiers are to a king: their knowledge of their master approaches to the\nfamiliarity which breeds contempt. Not that David was ever a subject for\ncontempt or less than an hero even to his own courtiers; but they knew him\nas a very human hero, great in his vices as well as in his virtues, daring\nin battle and wise in counsel, sometimes also reckless in sin, yet capable\nof unbounded repentance, loving not wisely, but too well. And as they knew\nhim, so they described him; and their picture is an immortal possession\nfor all students of sacred life and literature. But it is not the portrait\nof a Messiah; when we think of the \u201cSon of David,\u201d we do not want to be\nreminded of Bath-sheba.\n\nDuring the six or seven centuries that elapsed between the death of David\nand the chronicler, the name of David had come to have a symbolic meaning,\nwhich was largely independent of the personal character and career of the\nactual king. His reign had become idealised by the magic of antiquity; it\nwas a glory of \u201cthe good old times.\u201d His own sins and failures were\nobscured by the crimes and disasters of later kings. And yet, in spite of\nall its shortcomings, the \u201chouse of David\u201d still remained the symbol alike\nof ancient glory and of future hopes. We have seen from the genealogies\nhow intimate the connection was between the family and its founder.\nEphraim and Benjamin may mean either patriarchs or tribes. A Jew was not\nalways anxious to distinguish between the family and the founder. \u201cDavid\u201d\nand \u201cthe house of David\u201d became almost interchangeable terms.\n\nEven the prophets of the eighth century connect the future destiny of\nIsrael with David and his house. The child, of whom Isaiah prophesied, was\nto sit \u201cupon the throne of David\u201d and be \u201cover his kingdom, to establish\nit and to uphold it with judgment and with righteousness from henceforth\neven for ever.\u201d(139) And, again, the king who is to \u201csit ... in truth, ...\njudging, and seeking judgment, and swift to do righteousness,\u201d is to have\n\u201chis throne ... established in mercy in the tent of David.\u201d(140) When\nSennacherib attacked Jerusalem, the city was defended(141) for Jehovah\u2019s\nown sake and for His servant David\u2019s sake. In the word of the Lord that\ncame to Isaiah for Hezekiah, David supersedes, as it were, the sacred\nfathers of the Hebrew race; Jehovah is not spoken of as \u201cthe God of\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob,\u201d but \u201cthe God of David.\u201d(142) As founder of the\ndynasty, he takes rank with the founders of the race and religion of\nIsrael: he is \u201cthe patriarch David.\u201d(143) The northern prophet Hosea looks\nforward to the time when \u201cthe children of Israel shall return, and seek\nthe Lord their God and David their king\u201d(144); when Amos wishes to set\nforth the future prosperity of Israel, he says that the Lord \u201cwill raise\nup the tabernacle of David\u201d(145); in Micah \u201cthe ruler in Israel\u201d is to\ncome forth from Bethlehem Ephrathah, the birthplace of David(146); in\nJeremiah such references to David are frequent, the most characteristic\nbeing those relating to the \u201crighteous branch, whom the Lord will raise up\nunto David,\u201d who \u201cshall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute\njudgment and justice in the land, in whose days Judah shall be saved, and\nIsrael shall dwell safely\u201d(147); in Ezekiel \u201cMy servant David\u201d is to be\nthe shepherd and prince of Jehovah\u2019s restored and reunited people(148);\nZechariah, writing at what we may consider the beginning of the\nchronicler\u2019s own period, follows the language of his predecessors: he\napplies Jeremiah\u2019s prophecy of \u201cthe righteous branch\u201d to Zerubbabel, the\nprince of the house of David(149): similarly in Haggai Zerubbabel is the\nchosen of Jehovah(150); in the appendix to Zechariah it is said that when\n\u201cthe Lord defends the inhabitants of Jerusalem\u201d \u201cthe house of David shall\nbe as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.\u201d(151) In the later\nliterature, Biblical and apocryphal, the Davidic origin of the Messiah is\nnot conspicuous till it reappears in the Psalms of Solomon(152) and the\nNew Testament, but the idea had not necessarily been dormant meanwhile.\nThe chronicler and his school studied and meditated on the sacred\nwritings, and must have been familiar with this doctrine of the prophets.\nThe interest in such a subject would not be confined to scholars.\nDoubtless the downtrodden people cherished with ever-growing ardour the\nglorious picture of the Davidic king. In the synagogues it was not only\nMoses, but the Prophets, that were read; and they could never allow the\npicture of the Messianic king to grow faint and pale.(153)\n\nDavid\u2019s name was also familiar as the author of many psalms. The\ninhabitants of Jerusalem would often hear them sung at the Temple, and\nthey were probably used for private devotion. In this way especially the\nname of David had become associated with the deepest and purest spiritual\nexperiences.\n\nThis brief survey shows how utterly impossible it was for the chronicler\nto transfer the older narrative bodily from the book of Samuel to his own\npages. Large omissions were absolutely necessary. He could not sit down in\ncold blood to tell his readers that the man whose name they associated\nwith the most sacred memories and the noblest hopes of Israel had been\nguilty of treacherous murder, and had offered himself to the Philistines\nas an ally against the people of Jehovah.\n\nFrom this point of view let us consider the chronicler\u2019s omissions\nsomewhat more in detail. In the first place, with one or two slight\nexceptions, he omits the whole of David\u2019s life before his accession to the\nthrone, for two reasons: partly because he is anxious that his readers\nshould think of David as king, the anointed of Jehovah, the Messiah;\npartly that they may not be reminded of his career as an outlaw and a\nfreebooter and of his alliance with the Philistines.(154) It is probably\nonly an unintentional result of this omission that it enables the\nchronicler to ignore the important services rendered to David by Abiathar,\nwhose family were rivals of the house of Zadok in the priesthood.\n\nWe have already seen that the events of David\u2019s reign at Hebron and his\nstruggle with Ishbosheth are omitted because the chronicler does not\nrecognise Ishbosheth as a legitimate king. The omission would also commend\nitself because this section contains the account of Joab\u2019s murder of Abner\nand David\u2019s inability to do more than protest against the crime. \u201cI am\nthis day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah are\ntoo hard for me,\u201d(155) are scarcely words that become an ideal king.\n\nThe next point to notice is one of those significant alterations that mark\nthe chronicler\u2019s industry as a redactor. In 2 Sam. v. 21 we read that\nafter the Philistines had been defeated at Baal-perazim they left their\nimages there, and David and his men took them away. Why did they take them\naway? What did David and his men want with images? Missionaries bring home\nimages as trophies, and exhibit them triumphantly, like soldiers who have\ncaptured the enemy\u2019s standards. No one, not even an unconverted native,\nsupposes that they have been brought away to be used in worship. But the\nworship of images was no improbable apostacy on the part of an Israelite\nking. The chronicler felt that these ambiguous words were open to\nmisconstruction; so he tells us what he assumes to have been their\nultimate fate: \u201cAnd they left their gods there; and David gave\ncommandment, and they were burnt with fire.\u201d(156)\n\nThe next omission was obviously a necessary one; it is the incident of\nUriah and Bath-sheba. The name Bath-sheba never occurs in Chronicles. When\nit is necessary to mention the mother of Solomon, she is called Bath-shua,\npossibly in order that the disgraceful incident might not be suggested\neven by the use of the name. The New Testament genealogies differ in this\nmatter in somewhat the same way as Samuel and Chronicles. St. Matthew\nexpressly mentions Uriah\u2019s wife as an ancestress of our Lord, but St. Luke\ndoes not mention her or any other ancestress.\n\nThe next omission is equally extensive and important. It includes the\nwhole series of events connected with the revolt of Absalom, from the\nincident of Tamar to the suppression of the rebellion of Sheba the son of\nBichri. Various motives may have contributed to this omission. The\nnarrative contains unedifying incidents, which are passed over as lightly\nas possible by modern writers like Stanley. It was probably a relief to\nthe chronicler to be able to omit them altogether. There is no heinous sin\nlike the murder of Uriah, but the story leaves a general impression of\ngreat weakness on David\u2019s part. Joab murders Amasa as he had murdered\nAbner, and this time there is no record of any protest even on the part of\nDavid. But probably the main reason for the omission of this narrative is\nthat it mars the ideal picture of David\u2019s power and dignity and the\nsuccess and prosperity of his reign.\n\nThe touching story of Rizpah is omitted; the hanging of her sons does not\nexhibit David in a very amiable light. The Gibeonites propose that \u201cthey\nshall hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the\nLord,\u201d and David accepts the proposal. This punishment of the children for\nthe sin of their father was expressly against the Law(157); and the whole\nincident was perilously akin to human sacrifice. How could they be hung up\nbefore Jehovah in Gibeah unless there was a sanctuary of Jehovah in\nGibeah? And why should Saul at such a time and in such a connection be\ncalled emphatically \u201cthe chosen of Jehovah\u201d? On many grounds, it was a\npassage which the chronicler would be glad to omit.\n\nIn 2 Sam. xxi. 15-17 we are told that David waxed faint and had to be\nrescued by Abishai. This is omitted by Chronicles probably because it\ndetracts from the character of David as the ideal hero. The next paragraph\nin Samuel also tended to depreciate David\u2019s prowess. It stated that\nGoliath was slain by Elhanan. The chronicler introduces a correction. It\nwas not Goliath whom Elhanan slew, but Lahmi, the brother of Goliath.\nHowever, the text in Samuel is evidently corrupt; and possibly this is one\nof the cases in which Chronicles has preserved the correct text.(158)\n\nThen follow two omissions that are not easily accounted for. 2 Sam. xxii.,\nxxiii., contain two psalms, Psalm xviii. and \u201cthe Last Words of David,\u201d\nthe latter not included in the Psalter. These psalms are generally\nconsidered a late addition to the book of Samuel, and it is barely\npossible that they were not in the copy used by the chronicler; but the\nlate date of Chronicles makes against this supposition. The psalms may be\nomitted for the sake of brevity, and yet elsewhere a long cento of\npassages from post-Exilic psalms is added to the material derived from the\nbook of Samuel. Possibly something in the omitted section jarred upon the\ntheological sensibilities of the chronicler, but it is not clear what. He\ndoes not as a rule look below the surface for obscure suggestions of\nundesirable views. The grounds of his alterations and omissions are\nusually sufficiently obvious; but these particular omissions are not at\npresent susceptible of any obvious explanation. Further research into the\ntheology of Judaism may perhaps provide us with one hereafter.\n\nFinally, the chronicler omits the attempt of Adonijah to seize the throne,\nand David\u2019s dying commands to Solomon. The opening chapters of the book of\nKings present a graphic and pathetic picture of the closing scenes of\nDavid\u2019s life. The king is exhausted with old age. His authoritative\nsanction to the coronation of Solomon is only obtained when he has been\nroused and directed by the promptings and suggestions of the women of his\nharem. The scene is partly a parallel and partly a contrast to the last\ndays of Queen Elizabeth; for when _her_ bodily strength failed, the\nobstinate Tudor spirit refused to be guided by the suggestions of her\ncourtiers. The chronicler was depicting a person of almost Divine dignity,\nin whom incidents of human weakness would have been out of keeping; and\ntherefore they are omitted.\n\nDavid\u2019s charge to Solomon is equally human. Solomon is to make up for\nDavid\u2019s weakness and undue generosity by putting Joab and Shimei to death;\non the other hand, he is to pay David\u2019s debt of gratitude to the son of\nBarzillai. But the chronicler felt that David\u2019s mind in those last days\nmust surely have been occupied with the temple which Solomon was to build,\nand the less edifying charge is omitted.\n\nConstantine is reported to have said that, for the honour of the Church,\nhe would conceal the sin of a bishop with his own imperial purple. David\nwas more to the chronicler than the whole Christian episcopate to\nConstantine. His life of David is compiled in the spirit and upon the\nprinciples of lives of saints generally, and his omissions are made in\nperfect good faith.\n\nLet us now consider the positive picture of David as it is drawn for us in\nChronicles. Chronicles would be published separately, each copy written\nout on a roll of its own. There may have been Jews who had Chronicles, but\nnot Samuel and Kings, and who knew nothing about David except what they\nlearned from Chronicles. Possibly the chronicler and his friends would\nrecommend the work as suitable for the education of children and the\ninstruction of the common people. It would save its readers from being\nperplexed by the religious difficulties suggested by Samuel and Kings.\nThere were many obstacles, however, to the success of such a scheme; the\npersecutions of Antiochus and the wars of the Maccabees took the\nleadership out of the hands of scholars and gave it to soldiers and\nstatesmen. The latter perhaps felt more drawn to the real David than to\nthe ideal, and the new priestly dynasty would not be anxious to emphasise\nthe Messianic hopes of the house of David. But let us put ourselves for a\nmoment in the position of a student of Hebrew history who reads of David\nfor the first time in Chronicles and has no other source of information.\n\nOur first impression as we read the book is that David comes into the\nhistory as abruptly as Elijah or Melchizedek. Jehovah slew Saul \u201cand\nturned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.\u201d(159) Apparently the\nDivine appointment is promptly and enthusiastically accepted by the\nnation; all the twelve tribes come at once in their tens and hundreds of\nthousands to Hebron to make David king. They then march straight to\nJerusalem and take it by storm, and forthwith attempt to bring up the Ark\nto Zion. An unfortunate accident necessitates a delay of three months, but\nat the end of that time the Ark is solemnly installed in a tent at\nJerusalem.(160)\n\nWe are not told who David the son of Jesse was, or why the Divine choice\nfell upon him, or how he had been prepared for his responsible position,\nor how he had so commended himself to Israel as to be accepted with\nuniversal acclaim. He must, however, have been of noble family and high\ncharacter; and it is hinted that he had had a distinguished career as a\nsoldier.(161) We should expect to find his name in the introductory\ngenealogies; and if we have read these lists of names with conscientious\nattention, we shall remember that there are sundry incidental references\nto David, and that he was the seventh son of Jesse,(162) who was descended\nfrom the Patriarch Judah, through Boaz, the husband of Ruth.\n\nAs we read further we come to other references which throw some light on\nDavid\u2019s early career, and at the same time somewhat mar the symmetry of\nthe opening narrative. The wide discrepancy between the chronicler\u2019s idea\nof David and the account given by his authorities prevents him from\ncomposing his work on an entirely consecutive and consistent plan. We\ngather that there was a time when David was in rebellion against his\npredecessor, and maintained himself at Ziklag and elsewhere, keeping\n\u201chimself close, because of Saul the son of Kish,\u201d and even that he came\nwith the Philistines against Saul to battle, but was prevented by the\njealousy of the Philistine chiefs from actually fighting against Saul.\nThere is nothing to indicate the occasion or circumstances of these\nevents.(163) But it appears that even at this period, when David was in\narms against the king of Israel and an ally of the Philistines, he was the\nchosen leader of Israel. Men flocked to him from Judah and Benjamin,\nManasseh and Gad, and doubtless from the other tribes as well: \u201cFrom day\nto day there came to David to help him, until it was a great host like the\nhost of God.\u201d(164)\n\nThis chapter partly explains David\u2019s popularity after Saul\u2019s death; but it\nonly carries the mystery a stage further back. How did this outlaw and\napparently unpatriotic rebel get so strong a hold on the affections of\nIsrael?\n\nChap. xii. also provides material for plausible explanations of another\ndifficulty. In chap. x. the army of Israel is routed, the inhabitants of\nthe land take to flight, and the Philistines occupy their cities; in xi.\nand xii. 23-40 all Israel come straightway to Hebron in the most peaceful\nand unconcerned fashion to make David king. Are we to understand that his\nPhilistine allies, mindful of that \u201cgreat host, like the host of God,\u201d all\nat once changed their minds and entirely relinquished the fruits of their\nvictory?\n\nElsewhere, however, we find a statement that renders other explanations\npossible. David reigned seven years in Hebron,(165) so that our first\nimpression as to the rapid sequence of events at the beginning of his\nreign is apparently not correct, and there was time in these seven years\nfor a more gradual expulsion of the Philistines. It is doubtful, however,\nwhether the chronicler intended his original narrative to be thus modified\nand interpreted.\n\nThe main thread of the history is interrupted here and later on(166) to\ninsert incidents which illustrate the personal courage and prowess of\nDavid and his warriors. We are also told how busily occupied David was\nduring the three months\u2019 sojourn of the Ark in the house of Obed-edom the\nGittite. He accepted an alliance with Hiram, king of Tyre; he added to his\nharem; he successfully repelled two inroads of the Philistines, and made\nhim houses in the city of David.(167)\n\nThe narrative returns to its main subject: the history of the sanctuary at\nJerusalem. As soon as the Ark was duly installed in its tent, and David\nwas established in his new palace, he was struck by the contrast between\nthe tent and the palace: \u201cLo, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of\nthe covenant of the Lord dwelleth under curtains.\u201d He proposed to\nsubstitute a temple for the tent, but was forbidden by his prophet Nathan,\nthrough whom God promised him that his son should build the Temple, and\nthat his house should be established for ever.(168)\n\nThen we read of the wars, victories, and conquests of David. He is no\nlonger absorbed in the defence of Israel against the Philistines. He takes\nthe aggressive and conquers Gath; he conquers Edom, Moab, Ammon, and\nAmalek; he and his armies defeat the Syrians in several battles, the\nSyrians become tributary, and David occupies Damascus with a garrison.\n\u201cAnd the Lord gave victory to David whithersoever he went.\u201d The conquered\nwere treated after the manner of those barbarous times. David and his\ngenerals carried off much spoil, especially brass, and silver, and gold;\nand when he conquered Rabbah, the capital of Ammon, \u201che brought forth the\npeople that were therein, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of\niron, and with axes. And thus did David unto all the cities of the\nchildren of Ammon.\u201d Meanwhile his home administration was as honourable as\nhis foreign wars were glorious: \u201cHe executed judgment and justice unto all\nhis people\u201d; and the government was duly organised with commanders of the\nhost and the bodyguard, with priests and scribes.(169)\n\nThen follows a mysterious and painful dispensation of Providence, which\nthe historian would gladly have omitted, if his respect for the memory of\nhis hero had not been overruled by his sense of the supreme importance of\nthe Temple. David, like Job, was given over for a season to Satan, and\nwhile possessed by this evil spirit displeased God by numbering Israel.\nHis punishment took the form of a great pestilence, which decimated his\npeople, until, by Divine command, David erected an altar in the\nthreshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite and offered sacrifices upon it,\nwhereupon the plague was stayed. David at once perceived the significance\nof this incident: Jehovah had indicated the site of the future Temple.\n\u201cThis is the house of Jehovah Elohim,(170) and this is the altar of burnt\noffering for Israel.\u201d(171)\n\nThis revelation of the Divine will as to the position of the Temple led\nDavid to proceed at once with preparations for its erection by Solomon,\nwhich occupied all his energies for the remainder of his life.(172) He\ngathered funds and materials, and gave his son full instructions about the\nbuilding; he organised the priests and Levites, the Temple orchestra and\nchoir, the doorkeepers, treasurers, officers, and judges; he also\norganised the army, the tribes, and the royal exchequer on the model of\nthe corresponding arrangements for the Temple.\n\nThen follows the closing scene of David\u2019s life. The sun of Israel sets\namid the flaming glories of the western sky. No clouds or mists rob him of\naccustomed splendour. David calls a great assembly of princes and\nwarriors; he addresses a solemn exhortation to them and to Solomon; he\ndelivers to his son instructions for \u201call the works\u201d which \u201cI have been\nmade to understand in writing from the hand of Jehovah.\u201d It is almost as\nthough the plans of the Temple had shared with the first tables of stone\nthe honour of being written with the very finger of God Himself, and David\nwere even greater than Moses. He reminds Solomon of all the preparations\nhe had made, and appeals to the princes and the people for further gifts;\nand they render willingly\u2014thousands of talents of gold, and silver, and\nbrass, and iron. David offers prayer and thanksgiving to the Lord: \u201cAnd\nDavid said to all the congregation, Now bless Jehovah our God. And all the\ncongregation blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down\ntheir heads, and worshipped Jehovah _and the king_. And they sacrificed\nsacrifices unto Jehovah, and offered burnt offerings unto Jehovah, on the\nmorrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a\nthousand lambs, with their drink offerings and sacrifices in abundance for\nall Israel, and did eat and drink before Jehovah on that day with great\ngladness. And they made Solomon king; ... and David died in a good old\nage, full of days, riches, and honour, and Solomon his son reigned in his\nstead.\u201d(173)\n\nThe Roman expressed his idea of a becoming death more simply: \u201cAn emperor\nshould die standing.\u201d The chronicler has given us the same view at greater\nlength; this is how the chronicler would have wished to die if he had been\nDavid, and how, therefore, he conceives that God honoured the last hours\nof the man after His own heart.\n\nIt is a strange contrast to the companion picture in the book of Kings.\nThere the king is bedridden, dying slowly of old age; the life-blood\ncreeps coldly through his veins. The quiet of the sick-room is invaded by\nthe shrill outcry of an aggrieved woman, and the dying king is roused to\nhear that once more eager hands are clutching at his crown. If the\nchronicler has done nothing else, he has helped us to appreciate better\nthe gloom and bitterness of the tragedy that was enacted in the last days\nof David.\n\nWhat idea does Chronicles give us of the man and his character? He is\nfirst and foremost a man of earnest piety and deep spiritual feeling. Like\nthe great religious leaders of the chronicler\u2019s own time, his piety found\nits chief expression in ritual. The main business of his life was to\nprovide for the sanctuary and its services; that is, for the highest\nfellowship of God and man, according to the ideas then current. But David\nis no mere formalist; the psalm of thanksgiving for the return of the Ark\nto Jerusalem is a worthy tribute to the power and faithfulness of\nJehovah.(174) His prayer after God had promised to establish his dynasty\nis instinct with devout confidence and gratitude.(175) But the most\ngracious and appropriate of these Davidic utterances is his last prayer\nand thanksgiving for the liberal gifts of the people for the Temple.(176)\n\nNext to David\u2019s enthusiasm for the Temple, his most conspicuous qualities\nare those of a general and soldier: he has great personal strength and\ncourage, and is uniformly successful in wars against numerous and powerful\nenemies; his government is both able and upright; his great powers as an\norganiser and administrator are exercised both in secular and\necclesiastical matters; in a word, he is in more senses than one an ideal\nking.\n\nMoreover, like Alexander, Marlborough, Napoleon, and other epoch-making\nconquerors, he had a great charm of personal attractiveness; he inspired\nhis officers and soldiers with enthusiasm and devotion to himself. The\npictures of all Israel flocking to him in the first days of his reign and\neven earlier, when he was an outlaw, are forcible illustrations of this\nwonderful gift; and the same feature of his character is at once\nillustrated and partly explained by the romantic episode at Adullam. What\ngreater proof of affection could outlaws give to their captain than to\nrisk their lives to get him a draught of water from the well of Bethlehem?\nHow better could David have accepted and ratified their devotion than by\npouring out this water as a most precious libation to God?(177) But the\nchronicler gives most striking expression to the idea of David\u2019s\npopularity when he finally tells us in the same breath that the people\nworshipped Jehovah and the king.(178)\n\nIn drawing an ideal picture, our author has naturally omitted incidents\nthat might have revealed the defects of his hero. Such omissions deceive\nno one, and are not meant to deceive any one. Yet David\u2019s failings are not\naltogether absent from this history. He has those vices which were\ncharacteristic alike of his own age and of the chronicler\u2019s, and which\nindeed are not yet wholly extinct. He could treat his prisoners with\nbarbarous cruelty. His pride led him to number Israel, but his repentance\nwas prompt and thorough; and the incident brings out alike both his faith\nin God and his care for his people. When the whole episode is before us,\nit does not lessen our love and respect for David. The reference to his\nalliance with the Philistines is vague and incidental. If this were our\nonly account of the matter, we should interpret it by the rest of his\nlife, and conclude that if all the facts were known, they would justify\nhis conduct.\n\nIn forming a general estimate of David according to Chronicles, we may\nfairly neglect these less satisfactory episodes. Briefly David is perfect\nsaint and perfect king, beloved of God and man.\n\nA portrait reveals the artist as well as the model and the chronicler in\ndepicting David gives indications of the morality of his own times. We may\ndeduce from his omissions a certain progress in moral sensitiveness. The\nbook of Samuel emphatically condemns David\u2019s treachery towards Uriah, and\nis conscious of the discreditable nature of many incidents connected with\nthe revolts of Absalom and Adonijah; but the silence of Chronicles implies\nan even severer condemnation. In other matters, however, the chronicler\n\u201cjudges himself in that which he approveth.\u201d(179) Of course the first\nbusiness of an ancient king was to protect his people from their enemies\nand to enrich them at the expense of their neighbours. The urgency of\nthese duties may excuse, but not justify, the neglect of the more peaceful\ndepartments of the administration. The modern reader is struck by the\nlittle stress laid by the narrative upon good government at home; it is\njust mentioned, and that is about all. As the sentiment of international\nmorality is even now only in its infancy, we cannot wonder at its absence\nfrom Chronicles; but we are a little surprised to find that cruelty\ntowards prisoners is included without comment in the character of the\nideal king.(180) It is curious that the account in the book of Samuel is\nslightly ambiguous and might possibly admit of a comparatively mild\ninterpretation; but Chronicles, according to the ordinary translation,\nsays definitely, \u201cHe _cut_ them with saws.\u201d The mere reproduction of this\npassage need not imply full and deliberate approval of its contents; but\nit would not have been allowed to remain in the picture of the ideal king,\nif the chronicler had felt any strong conviction as to the duty of\nhumanity towards one\u2019s enemies. Unfortunately we know from the book of\nEsther and elsewhere that later Judaism had not attained to any wide\nenthusiasm of humanity.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV. David\u2014III. His Official Dignity.\n\n\nIn estimating the personal character of David, we have seen that one\nelement of it was his ideal kingship. Apart from his personality, his name\nis significant for Old Testament theology, as that of the typical king.\nFrom the time when the royal title \u201cMessiah\u201d began to be a synonym for the\nhope of Israel, down to the period when the Anglican Church taught the\nDivine right of kings, and Calvinists insisted on the Divine sovereignty\nor royal authority of God, the dignity and power of the King of kings have\nalways been illustrated by, and sometimes associated with, the state of an\nearthly monarch\u2014whereof David is the most striking example.\n\nThe times of the chronicler were favourable to the development of the idea\nof the perfect king of Israel, the prince of the house of David. There was\nno king in Israel; and, as far as we can gather, the living\nrepresentatives of the house of David held no very prominent position in\nthe community. It is much easier to draw a satisfactory picture of the\nideal monarch when the imagination is not checked and hampered by the\nfaults and failings of an actual Ahaz or Hezekiah. In earlier times the\nprophetic hopes for the house of David had often been rudely disappointed,\nbut there had been ample space to forget the past and to revive the old\nhopes in fresh splendour and magnificence. Lack of experience helped to\ncommend the idea of the Davidic king to the chronicler. Enthusiasm for a\nbenevolent despot is mostly confined to those who have not enjoyed the\nprivilege of living under such autocratic government.\n\nOn the other hand, there was no temptation to flatter any living Davidic\nking, so that the semi-Divine character of the kingship of David is not\nset forth after the gross and almost blasphemous style of Roman emperors\nor Turkish sultans. It is indeed said that the people worshipped Jehovah\nand the king; but the essential character of Jewish thought made it\nimpossible that the ideal king should sit \u201cin the temple of God, setting\nhimself forth as God.\u201d David and Solomon could not share with the pagan\nemperors the honours of Divine worship in their life-time and apotheosis\nafter their death. Nothing addressed to any Hebrew king parallels the\npanegyric to the Christian emperor Theodosius, in which allusion is made\nto his \u201csacred mind,\u201d and he is told that \u201cas the Fates are said to assist\nwith their tablets _that God who is the partner in your majesty_, so does\nsome Divine power serve your bidding, which writes down and in due time\nsuggests to your memory the promises which you have made.\u201d(181) Nor does\nChronicles adorn the kings of Judah with extravagant Oriental titles, such\nas \u201cKing of kings of kings of kings.\u201d Devotion to the house of David never\noversteps the bounds of a due reverence, but the Hebrew idea of monarchy\nloses nothing by this salutary reserve.\n\nIndeed, the title of the royal house of Judah rested upon Divine\nappointment. \u201cJehovah ... turned the kingdom unto David; ... and they\nanointed David king over Israel, according to the word of Jehovah by the\nhand of Samuel.\u201d(182) But the Divine choice was confirmed by the cordial\nconsent of the nation; the sovereigns of Judah, like those of England,\nruled by the grace of God and the will of the people. Even before David\u2019s\naccession the Israelites had flocked to his standard; and after the death\nof Saul a great array of the twelve tribes came to Hebron to make David\nking, \u201cand all the rest also of Israel were of one heart to make David\nking.\u201d(183) Similarly Solomon is the king \u201cwhom God hath chosen,\u201d and all\nthe congregation make him king and anoint him to be prince.(184) The\ndouble election of David by Jehovah and by the nation is clearly set forth\nin the book of Samuel, and in Chronicles the omission of David\u2019s early\ncareer emphasises this election. In the book of Samuel we are shown the\nnatural process that brought about the change of dynasty; we see how the\nDivine choice took effect through the wars between Saul and the\nPhilistines and through David\u2019s own ability and energy. Chronicles is\nmostly silent as to secondary causes, and fixes our attention on the\nDivine choice as the ultimate ground for David\u2019s elevation.\n\nThe authority derived from God and the people continued to rest on the\nsame basis. David sought Divine direction alike for the building of the\nTemple and for his campaigns against the Philistines. At the same time,\nwhen he wished to bring up the Ark to Jerusalem, he \u201cconsulted with the\ncaptains of thousands and of hundreds, even with every leader; and David\nsaid unto all the assembly of Israel, If it seem good unto you, and if it\nbe of Jehovah our God, ... let us bring again the ark of our God to us;\n... and all the assembly said that they would do so, for the thing was\nright in the eyes of all the people.\u201d(185) Of course the chronicler does\nnot intend to describe a constitutional monarchy, in which an assembly of\nthe people had any legal status. Apparently in his own time the Jews\nexercised their measure of local self-government through an informal\noligarchy, headed by the high-priest; and these authorities occasionally\nappealed to an assembly of the people. The administration under the\nmonarchy was carried on in a somewhat similar fashion, only the king had\ngreater authority than the high-priest, and the oligarchy of notables were\nnot so influential as the colleagues of the latter. But apart from any\nformal constitution the chronicler\u2019s description of these incidents\ninvolves a recognition of the principle of popular consent in government\nas well as the doctrine that civil order rests upon a Divine sanction.\n\nIt is interesting to see how a member of a great ecclesiastical community,\nimbued, as we should suppose, with all the spirit of priestcraft, yet\ninsists upon the royal supremacy both in state and Church. But to have\ndone otherwise would have been to go in the teeth of all history; even in\nthe Pentateuch the \u201cking in Jeshurun\u201d is greater than the priest.\nMoreover, the chronicler was not a priest, but a Levite; and there are\nindications that the Levites\u2019 ancient jealousy of the priests had by no\nmeans died out. In Chronicles, at any rate, there is no question of\npriests interfering with the king\u2019s secular administration. They are not\neven mentioned as obtaining oracles for David as Abiathar did before his\naccession.(186) This was doubtless implied in the original account of the\nPhilistine raids in chap. xiv., but the chronicler may not have understood\nthat \u201cinquiring of God\u201d meant obtaining an oracle from the priests.\n\nThe king is equally supreme also in ecclesiastical affairs; we might even\nsay that the civil authorities generally shared this supremacy. Somewhat\nafter the fashion of Cromwell and his major-generals, David utilised \u201cthe\ncaptains of the host\u201d as a kind of ministry of public worship; they joined\nwith him in organising the orchestra and choir for the services of the\nsanctuary(187): probably Napoleon and his marshals would have had no\nhesitation in selecting anthems for Notre Dame if the idea had occurred to\nthem. David also consulted his captains,(188) and not the priests, about\nbringing the Ark to Jerusalem. When he gathered the great assembly to make\nhis final arrangements for the building of the Temple, the princes and\ncaptains, the rulers and mighty men, are mentioned, but no priests.(189)\nAnd, last, all the congregation apparently anoint(190) Zadok to be priest.\nThe chronicler was evidently a pronounced Erastian.(191) David is no mere\nnominal head of the Church; he takes the initiative in all important\nmatters, and receives the Divine commands either directly or through his\nprophets Nathan and Gad. Now these prophets are not ecclesiastical\nauthorities; they have nothing to do with the priesthood, and do not\ncorrespond to the officials of an organised Church. They are rather the\ndomestic chaplains or confessors of the king, differing from modern\nchaplains and confessors in having no ecclesiastical superiors. They were\nnot responsible to the bishop of any diocese or the general of any order;\nthey did not manipulate the royal conscience in the interests of any party\nin the Church; they served God and the king, and had no other masters.\nThey did not beard David before his people, as Ambrose confronted\nTheodosius or as Chrysostom rated Eudoxia; they delivered their message to\nDavid in private, and on occasion he communicated it to the people.(192)\nThe king\u2019s spiritual dignity is rather enhanced than otherwise by this\nreception of prophetic messages specially delivered to himself. There is\nanother aspect of the royal supremacy in religion. In this particular\ninstance its object is largely the exaltation of David; to arrange for\npublic worship is the most honourable function of the ideal king. At the\nsame time the care of the sanctuary is his most sacred duty, and is\nassigned to him that it may be punctually and worthily discharged. State\nestablishment of the Church is combined with a very thorough control of\nthe Church by the state.\n\nWe see then that the monarchy rested on Divine and national election, and\nwas guided by the will of God and of the people. Indeed, in bringing up\nthe Ark(193) the consent of the people is the only recorded indication of\nthe will of God. \u201cVox populi vox Dei.\u201d The king and his government are\nsupreme alike over the state and the sanctuary, and are entrusted with the\ncharge of providing for public worship. Let us try to express the modern\nequivalents of these principles. Civil government is of Divine origin, and\nshould obtain the consent of the people; it should be carried on according\nto the will of God, freely accepted by the nation. The civil authority is\nsupreme both in Church and state, and is responsible for the maintenance\nof public worship.\n\nOne at least of these principles is so widely accepted that it is quite\nindependent of any Scriptural sanction from Chronicles. The consent of the\npeople has long been accepted as an essential condition of any stable\ngovernment. The sanctity of civil government and the sacredness of its\nresponsibilities are coming to be recognised, at present perhaps rather in\ntheory than in practice. We have not yet fully realised how the truth\nunderlying the doctrine of the Divine right of kings applies to modern\nconditions. Formerly the king was the representative of the state, or even\nthe state itself; that is to say, the king directly or indirectly\nmaintained social order, and provided for the security of life and\nproperty. The Divine appointment and authority of the king expressed the\nsanctity of law and order as the essential conditions of moral and\nspiritual progress. The king is no longer the state. His Divine right,\nhowever, belongs to him, not as a person or as a member of a family, but\nas the embodiment of the state, the champion of social order against\nanarchy. The \u201cDivinity that doth hedge a king\u201d is now shared by the\nsovereign with all the various departments of government. The state\u2014that\nis to say, the community organised for the common good and for mutual\nhelp\u2014is now to be recognised as of Divine appointment and as wielding a\nDivine authority. \u201cThe Lord has turned the kingdom to\u201d the people.\n\nThis revolution is so tremendous that it would not be safe to apply to the\nmodern state the remaining principles of the chronicler. Before we could\ndo so we should need to enter into a discussion which would be out of\nplace here, even if we had space for it.\n\nIn one point the new democracies agree with the chronicler: they are not\ninclined to submit secular affairs to the domination of ecclesiastical\nofficials.\n\nThe questions of the supremacy of the state over the Church and of the\nstate establishment of the Church involve larger and more complicated\nissues than existed in the mind or experience of the chronicler. But his\npicture of the ideal king suggests one idea that is in harmony with some\nmodern aspirations. In Chronicles the king, as the representative of the\nstate, is the special agent in providing for the highest spiritual needs\nof the people. May we venture to hope that out of the moral consciousness\nof a nation united in mutual sympathy and service there may arise a new\nenthusiasm to obey and worship God? Human cruelty is the greatest\nstumbling-block to belief and fellowship; when the state has somewhat\nmitigated the misery of \u201cman\u2019s inhumanity to man,\u201d faith in God will be\neasier.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V. Solomon.\n\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s history of Solomon is constructed on the same principles\nas that of David, and for similar reasons. The builder of the first Temple\ncommanded the grateful reverence of a community whose national and\nreligious life centred in the second Temple. While the Davidic king became\nthe symbol of the hope of Israel, the Jews could not forget that this\nsymbol derived much of its significance from the widespread dominion and\nroyal magnificence of Solomon. The chronicler, indeed, attributes great\nsplendour to the court of David, and ascribes to him a lion\u2019s share in the\nTemple itself. He provided his successor with treasure and materials and\neven the complete plans, so that on the principle, \u201cQui facit per alium,\nfacit per se,\u201d David might have been credited with the actual building.\nSolomon was almost in the position of a modern engineer who puts together\na steamer that has been built in sections. But, with all these\nlimitations, the clear and obvious fact remained that Solomon actually\nbuilt and dedicated the Temple. Moreover, the memory of his wealth and\ngrandeur kept a firm hold on the popular imagination; and these\nconspicuous blessings were received as certain tokens of the favour of\nJehovah.\n\nSolomon\u2019s fame, however, was threefold: he was not only the Divinely\nappointed builder of the Temple and, by the same Divine grace, the richest\nand most powerful king of Israel: he had also received from Jehovah the\ngift of \u201cwisdom and knowledge.\u201d In his royal splendour and his sacred\nbuildings he only differed in degree from other kings; but in his wisdom\nhe stood alone, not only without equal, but almost without competitor.\nHerein he was under no obligation to his father, and the glory of Solomon\ncould not be diminished by representing that he had been anticipated by\nDavid. Hence the name of Solomon came to symbolise Hebrew learning and\nphilosophy.\n\nIn religious significance, however, Solomon cannot rank with David. The\ndynasty of Judah could have only one representative, and the founder and\neponym of the royal house was the most important figure for the subsequent\ntheology. The interest that later generations felt in Solomon lay apart\nfrom the main line of Jewish orthodoxy, and he is never mentioned by the\nprophets.(194)\n\nMoreover, the darker aspects of Solomon\u2019s reign made more impression upon\nsucceeding generations than even David\u2019s sins and misfortunes. Occasional\nlapses into vice and cruelty might be forgiven or even forgotten; but the\nsystematic oppression of Solomon rankled for long generations in the\nhearts of the people, and the prophets always remembered his wanton\nidolatry. His memory was further discredited by the disasters which marked\nthe close of his own reign and the beginning of Rehoboam\u2019s. Centuries\nlater these feelings still prevailed. The prophets who adapted the Mosaic\nlaw for the closing period of the monarchy exhort the king to take warning\nby Solomon, and to multiply neither horses, nor wives, nor gold and\nsilver.(195)\n\nBut as time went on Judah fell into growing poverty and distress, which\ncame to a head in the Captivity, and were renewed with the Restoration.\nThe Jews were willing to forget Solomon\u2019s faults in order that they might\nindulge in fond recollections of the material prosperity of his reign.\nTheir experience of the culture of Babylon led them to feel greater\ninterest and pride in his wisdom, and the figure of Solomon began to\nassume a mysterious grandeur, which has since become the nucleus for\nJewish and Mohammedan legends. The chief monument of his fame in Jewish\nliterature is the book of Proverbs, but his growing reputation is shown by\nthe numerous Biblical and apocryphal works ascribed to him. His name was\nno doubt attached to Canticles because of a feature in his character which\nthe chronicler ignores. His supposed authorship of Ecclesiastes and of the\nWisdom of Solomon testifies to the fame of his wisdom, while the titles of\nthe \u201cPsalms of Solomon\u201d and even of some canonical psalms credit him with\nspiritual feeling and poetic power.(196)\n\nWhen the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach proposes to \u201cpraise famous\nmen,\u201d it dwells upon Solomon\u2019s temple and his wealth, and especially upon\nhis wisdom; but it does not forget his failings.(197) Josephus celebrates\nhis glory at great length. The New Testament has comparatively few notices\nof Solomon; but these include references to his wisdom,(198) his\nsplendour,(199) and his temple.(200) The Koran, however, far surpasses the\nNew Testament in its interest in Solomon; and his name and his seal play a\nleading part in Jewish and Arabian magic. The bulk of this literature is\nlater than the chronicler, but the renewed interest in the glory of\nSolomon must have begun before his time. Perhaps, by connecting the\nbuilding of the Temple as far as possible with David, the chronicler marks\nhis sense of Solomon\u2019s unworthiness. On the other hand, there were many\nreasons why he should welcome the aid of popular sentiment to enable him\nto include Solomon among the ideal Hebrew kings. After all, Solomon had\nbuilt and dedicated the Temple; he was the \u201cpious founder,\u201d and the\nbeneficiaries of the foundation would wish to make the most of his piety.\n\u201cJehovah\u201d had \u201cmagnified Solomon exceedingly in the sight of all Israel,\nand bestowed upon him such royal majesty as had not been on any king\nbefore him in Israel.\u201d(201) \u201cKing Solomon exceeded all the kings of the\nearth in riches and wisdom; and all the kings of the earth sought the\npresence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his\nheart.\u201d(202) The chronicler would naturally wish to set forth the better\nside of Solomon\u2019s character as an ideal of royal wisdom and splendour,\ndevoted to the service of the sanctuary. Let us briefly compare Chronicles\nand Kings to see how he accomplished his purpose.\n\nThe structure of the narrative in Kings rendered the task comparatively\neasy: it could be accomplished by removing the opening and closing\nsections and making a few minor changes in the intermediate portion. The\nopening section is the sequel to the conclusion of David\u2019s reign; the\nchronicler omitted this conclusion, and therefore also its sequel. But the\ncontents of this section were objectionable in themselves. Solomon\u2019s\nadmirers willingly forget that his reign was inaugurated by the execution\nof Shimei, of his brother Adonijah, and of his father\u2019s faithful minister\nJoab, and by the deposition of the high-priest Abiathar. The chronicler\nnarrates with evident approval the strong measures of Ezra and Nehemiah\nagainst foreign marriages, and he is therefore not anxious to remind his\nreaders that Solomon married Pharaoh\u2019s daughter. He does not, however,\ncarry out his plan consistently. Elsewhere he wishes to emphasise the\nsanctity of the Ark and tells us that \u201cSolomon brought up the daughter of\nPharaoh out of the city of David unto the house that he had built for her,\nfor he said, My wife shall not dwell in the house of David, king of\nIsrael, because the places are holy whereunto the ark of the Lord hath\ncome.\u201d(203)\n\nIn Kings the history of Solomon closes with a long account of his numerous\nwives and concubines, his idolatry and consequent misfortunes. All this is\nomitted by the chronicler; but later on, with his usual inconsistency, he\nallows Nehemiah to point the moral of a tale he has left untold: \u201cDid not\nSolomon, king of Israel, sin by these things?... Even him did strange\nwomen cause to sin.\u201d(204) In the intervening section he omits the famous\njudgment of Solomon, probably on account of the character of the women\nconcerned. He introduces sundry changes which naturally follow from his\nbelief that the Levitical law was then in force.(205) His feeling for the\ndignity of the chosen people and their king comes out rather curiously in\ntwo minor alterations. Both authorities agree in telling us that Solomon\nhad recourse to forced labour for his building operations; in fact, after\nthe usual Eastern fashion from the Pyramids down to the Suez Canal,\nSolomon\u2019s temple and palaces were built by the _corv\u00e9e_. According to the\noldest narrative, he \u201craised a levy out of all Israel.\u201d(206) This suggests\nthat forced labour was exacted from the Israelites themselves, and it\nwould help to account for Jeroboam\u2019s successful rebellion. The chronicler\nomits this statement as open to an interpretation derogatory to the\ndignity of the chosen people, and not only inserts a later explanation\nwhich he found in the book of Kings, but also another express statement\nthat Solomon raised his levy of the \u201cstrangers that were in the land of\nIsrael.\u201d(207) These statements may have been partly suggested by the\nexistence of a class of Temple slaves called Solomon\u2019s servants.\n\nThe other instance relates to Solomon\u2019s alliance with Hiram, king of Tyre.\nIn the book of Kings we are told that \u201cSolomon gave Hiram twenty cities in\nthe land of Galilee.\u201d(208) There were indeed redeeming features connected\nwith the transaction; the cities were not a very valuable possession for\nHiram: \u201cthey pleased him not\u201d; yet he \u201csent to the King six score talents\nof gold.\u201d However, it seemed incredible to the chronicler that the most\npowerful and wealthy of the kings of Israel should either cede or sell any\nportion of Jehovah\u2019s inheritance. He emends the text of his authority so\nas to convert it into a casual reference to certain cities which Hiram had\ngiven to Solomon.(209)\n\nWe will now reproduce the story of Solomon as given by the chronicler.\nSolomon was the youngest of four sons born to David at Jerusalem by\nBath-shua, the daughter of Ammiel. Besides these three brothers, he had at\nleast six other elder brothers. As in the cases of Isaac, Jacob, Judah,\nand David himself, the birthright fell to a younger son. In the prophetic\nutterance which foretold his birth, he was designated to succeed to his\nfather\u2019s throne and to build the Temple. At the great assembly which\nclosed his father\u2019s reign he received instructions as to the plans and\nservices of the Temple,(210) and was exhorted to discharge his duties\nfaithfully. He was declared king according to the Divine choice, freely\naccepted by David and ratified by popular acclamation. At David\u2019s death no\none disputed his succession to the throne: \u201cAll Israel obeyed him; and all\nthe princes and the mighty men and all the sons likewise of King David\nsubmitted themselves unto Solomon the king.\u201d(211)\n\nHis first act after his accession was to sacrifice before the brazen altar\nof the ancient Tabernacle at Gibeon. That night God appeared unto him \u201cand\nsaid unto him, Ask what I shall give thee.\u201d Solomon chose wisdom and\nknowledge to qualify him for the arduous task of government. Having thus\n\u201csought first the kingdom of God and His righteousness,\u201d all other\nthings\u2014\u201criches, wealth, and honour\u201d\u2014were added unto him.(212)\n\nHe returned to Jerusalem, gathered a great array of chariots and horses by\nmeans of traffic with Egypt, and accumulated great wealth, so that silver,\nand gold, and cedars became abundant at Jerusalem.(213)\n\nHe next proceeded with the building of the Temple, collected workmen,\nobtained timber from Lebanon and an artificer from Tyre. The Temple was\nduly erected and dedicated, the king taking the chief and most conspicuous\npart in all the proceedings. Special reference, however, is made to the\npresence of the priests and Levites at the dedication. On this occasion\nthe ministry of the sanctuary was not confined to the course whose turn it\nwas to officiate, but \u201call the priests that were present had sanctified\nthemselves and did not keep their courses; also the Levites, which were\nthe singers, all of them, even Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and their sons and\ntheir brethren, arrayed in fine linen, with cymbals, and psalteries, and\nharps, stood at the east end of the altar, and with them a hundred and\ntwenty priests sounding with trumpets.\u201d(214)\n\nSolomon\u2019s dedication prayer concludes with special petitions for the\npriests, the saints, and the king: \u201cNow therefore arise, O Jehovah Elohim,\ninto Thy resting-place, Thou and the ark of Thy strength; let Thy priests,\nO Jehovah Elohim, be clothed with salvation, and let Thy saints rejoice in\ngoodness. O Jehovah Elohim, turn not away the face of Thine anointed;\nremember the mercies of David Thy servant.\u201d(215)\n\nWhen David sacrificed at the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite, the\nplace had been indicated as the site of the future Temple by the descent\nof fire from heaven; and now, in token that the mercy shown to David\nshould be continued to Solomon, the fire again fell from heaven, and\nconsumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of Jehovah\n\u201cfilled the house of Jehovah,\u201d(216) as it had done earlier in the day,\nwhen the Ark was brought into the Temple. Solomon concluded the opening\nceremonies by a great festival: for eight days the Feast of Tabernacles\nwas observed according to the Levitical law, and seven days more were\nspecially devoted to a dedication feast.(217)\n\nAfterwards Jehovah appeared again to Solomon, as He had before at Gibeon,\nand told him that this prayer was accepted. Taking up the several\npetitions that the king had offered, He promised, \u201cIf I shut up heaven\nthat there be no rain, or if I send pestilence among My people; if My\npeople, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray,\nand seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from\nheaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. Now Mine\neyes shall be open, and Mine ears attent, unto the prayer that is made in\nthis place.\u201d Thus Jehovah, in His gracious condescension, adopts Solomon\u2019s\nown words(218) to express His answer to the prayer. He allows Solomon to\ndictate the terms of the agreement, and merely appends His signature and\nseal.\n\nBesides the Temple, Solomon built palaces for himself and his wife, and\nfortified many cities, among the rest Hamath-zobah, formerly allied to\nDavid.(219) He also organised the people for civil and military purposes.\n\nAs far as the account of his reign is concerned, the Solomon of Chronicles\nappears as \u201cthe husband of one wife\u201d; and that wife is the daughter of\nPharaoh. A second, however, is mentioned later on as the mother of\nRehoboam; she too was a \u201cstrange woman,\u201d an Ammonitess, Naamah by name.\n\nMeanwhile Solomon was careful to maintain all the sacrifices and festivals\nordained in the Levitical law, and all the musical and other arrangements\nfor the sanctuary commanded by David, the man of God.(220)\n\nWe read next of his commerce by sea and land, his great wealth and wisdom,\nand the romantic visit of the queen of Sheba.(221)\n\nAnd so the story of Solomon closes with this picture of royal state,\u2014\n\n\n            \u201cThe wealth of Ormus and of Ind,\n    Or where the gorgeous East with richest hand\n    Showers on her kings barbaric pearl and gold.\u201d\n\n\nWealth was combined with imperial power and Divine wisdom. Here, as in the\ncase of Plato\u2019s own pupils Dionysius and Dion of Syracuse, Plato\u2019s dream\ncame true; the prince was a philosopher, and the philosopher a prince.\n\nAt first sight it seems as if this marriage of authority and wisdom had\nhappier issue at Jerusalem than at Syracuse. Solomon\u2019s history closes as\nbrilliantly as David\u2019s, and Solomon was subject to no Satanic possession\nand brought no pestilence upon Israel. But testimonials are chiefly\nsignificant in what they omit; and when we compare the conclusions of the\nhistories of David and Solomon, we note suggestive differences.\n\nSolomon\u2019s life does not close with any scene in which his people and his\nheir assemble to do him honour and to receive his last injunctions. There\nare no \u201clast words\u201d of the wise king; and it is not said of him that \u201che\ndied in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honour.\u201d \u201cSolomon slept\nwith his fathers, and he was buried in the city of David his father; and\nRehoboam his son reigned in his stead\u201d(222): that is all. When the\nchronicler, the professed panegyrist of the house of David, brings his\nnarrative of this great reign to so lame and impotent a conclusion, he\nreally implies as severe a condemnation upon Solomon as the book of Kings\ndoes by its narrative of his sins.\n\nThus the Solomon of Chronicles shows the same piety and devotion to the\nTemple and its ritual which were shown by his father. His prayer at the\ndedication of the Temple is parallel to similar utterances of David.\nInstead of being a general and a soldier, he is a scholar and a\nphilosopher. He succeeded to the administrative abilities of his father;\nand his prayer displays a deep interest in the welfare of his subjects.\nHis record\u2014in Chronicles\u2014is even more faultless than that of David. And\nyet the careful student with nothing but Chronicles, even without Ezra and\nNehemiah, might somehow get the impression that the story of Solomon, like\nthat of Cambuscan, had been \u201cleft half told.\u201d In addition to the points\nsuggested by a comparison with the history of David, there is a certain\nabruptness about its conclusion. The last fact noted of Solomon, before\nthe formal statistics about \u201cthe rest of his acts\u201d and the years of his\nreign, is that horses were brought for him \u201cout of Egypt and out of all\nlands.\u201d Elsewhere the chronicler\u2019s use of his materials shows a feeling\nfor dramatic effect. We should not have expected him to close the history\nof a great reign by a reference to the king\u2019s trade in horses.(223)\n\nPerhaps we are apt to read into Chronicles what we know from the book of\nKings; yet surely this abrupt conclusion would have raised a suspicion\nthat there were omissions, that facts had been suppressed because they\ncould not bear the light. Upon the splendid figure of the great king, with\nhis wealth and wisdom, his piety and devotion, rests the vague shadow of\nunnamed sins and unrecorded misfortunes. A suggestion of unhallowed\nmystery attaches itself to the name of the builder of the Temple, and\nSolomon is already on the way to become the Master of the Genii and the\nchief of magicians.(224)\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI. Solomon (continued).\n\n\nWhen we turn to consider the spiritual significance of this ideal picture\nof the history and character of Solomon, we are confronted by a difficulty\nthat attends the exposition of any ideal history. An author\u2019s ideal of\nkingship in the early stages of literature is usually as much one and\nindivisible as his ideal of priesthood, of the office of the prophet, and\nof the wicked king. His authorities may record different incidents in\nconnection with each individual; but he emphasises those which correspond\nwith his ideal, or even anticipates the higher criticism by constructing\nincidents which seem required by the character and circumstances of his\nheroes. On the other hand, where the priest, or the prophet, or the king\ndeparts from the ideal, the incidents are minimised or passed over in\nsilence. There will still be a certain variety because different\nindividuals may present different elements of the ideal, and the\nchronicler does not insist on each of his good kings possessing all the\ncharacteristics of royal perfection. Still the tendency of the process is\nto make all the good kings alike. It would be monotonous to take each of\nthem separately and deduce the lessons taught by their virtues, because\nthe chronicler\u2019s intention is that they shall all teach the same lessons\nby the same kind of behaviour described from the same point of view. David\nhas a unique position, and has to be taken by himself; but in considering\nthe features that must be added to the picture of David in order to\ncomplete the picture of the good king, it is convenient to group Solomon\nwith the reforming kings of Judah. We shall therefore defer for more\nconsecutive treatment the chronicler\u2019s account of their general characters\nand careers. Here we shall merely gather up the suggestions of the\ndifferent narratives as to the chronicler\u2019s ideal Hebrew king.\n\nThe leading points have already been indicated from the chronicler\u2019s\nhistory of David. The first and most indispensable feature is devotion to\nthe temple at Jerusalem and the ritual of the Pentateuch. This has been\nabundantly illustrated from the account of Solomon. Taking the reforming\nkings in their order:\u2014\n\nAsa removed the high places which were rivals of the Temple,(225) renewed\nthe altar of Jehovah, gathered the people together for a great\nsacrifice,(226) and made munificent donations to the Temple treasury.(227)\n\nSimilarly Jehoshaphat took away the high places,(228) and sent out a\ncommission to teach the Law.(229)\n\nJoash repaired the Temple(230); but, curiously enough, though Jehoram had\nrestored the high places(231) and Joash was acting under the direction of\nthe high-priest Jehoiada, it is not stated that the high places were done\naway with. This is one of the chronicler\u2019s rather numerous oversights.\nPerhaps, however, he expected that so obvious a reform would be taken for\ngranted.\n\nAmaziah was careful to observe \u201cthe law in the book of Moses\u201d that \u201cthe\nchildren should not die for the fathers,\u201d(232) but Amaziah soon turned\naway from following Jehovah. This is perhaps the reason why in his case\nalso nothing is said about doing away with the high places.\n\nHezekiah had a special opportunity of showing his devotion to the Temple\nand the Law. The Temple had been polluted and closed by Ahaz, and its\nservices discontinued. Hezekiah purified the Temple, reinstated the\npriests and Levites, and renewed the services; he made arrangements for\nthe payment of the Temple revenues according to the provisions of the\nLevitical law, and took away the high places. He also held a reopening\nfestival and a passover with numerous sacrifices.(233)\n\nManasseh\u2019s repentance is indicated by the restoration of the Temple\nritual.(234)\n\nJosiah took away the high places, repaired the Temple, made the people\nenter into a covenant to observe the rediscovered Law, and, like Hezekiah,\nheld a great passover.(235)\n\nThe reforming kings, like David and Solomon, are specially interested in\nthe music of the Temple and in all the arrangements that have to do with\nthe porters and doorkeepers and other classes of Levites. Their enthusiasm\nfor the exclusive rights of the one Temple symbolises their loyalty to the\none God, Jehovah, and their hatred of idolatry.\n\nZeal for Jehovah and His temple is still combined with uncompromising\nassertion of the royal supremacy in matters of religion. The king, and not\nthe priest, is the highest spiritual authority in the nation. Solomon,\nHezekiah, and Josiah control the arrangements for public worship as\ncompletely as Moses or David. Solomon receives Divine communications\nwithout the intervention of either priest or prophet; he himself offers\nthe great dedication prayer, and when he makes an end of praying, fire\ncomes down from heaven. Under Hezekiah the civil authorities decide when\nthe passover shall be observed: \u201cFor the king had taken counsel, and his\nprinces, and all the congregation in Jerusalem, to keep the passover in\nthe second month.\u201d(236) The great reforms of Josiah are throughout\ninitiated and controlled by the king. He himself goes up to the Temple and\nreads in the ears of the people all the words of the book of the covenant\nthat was found in the house of Jehovah. The chronicler still adheres to\nthe primitive idea of the theocracy, according to which the chief, or\njudge, or king is the representative of Jehovah.\n\nThe title to the crown rests throughout on the grace of God and the will\nof the people. In Judah, however, the principle of hereditary succession\nprevails throughout. Athaliah is not really an exception: she reigned as\nthe widow of a Davidic king. The double election of David by Jehovah and\nby Israel carried with it the election of his dynasty. The permanent rule\nof the house of David was secured by the Divine promise to its founder.\nYet the title is not allowed to rest on mere hereditary right. Divine\nchoice and popular recognition are recorded in the case of Solomon and\nother kings. \u201cAll Israel came to Shechem to make Rehoboam king,\u201d and yet\nrevolted from him when he refused to accept their conditions; but the\nobstinacy which caused the disruption \u201cwas brought about of God, that\nJehovah might establish His word which He spake by the hand of Ahijah the\nShilonite.\u201d\n\nAhaziah, Joash, Uzziah, Josiah, Jehoahaz, were all set upon the throne by\nthe inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.(237) After Solomon the Divine\nappointment of kings is not expressly mentioned; Jehovah\u2019s control over\nthe tenure of the throne is chiefly shown by the removal of unworthy\noccupants.\n\nIt is interesting to note that the chronicler does not hesitate to record\nthat of the last three sovereigns of Judah two were appointed by foreign\nkings: Jehoiakim was the nominee of Pharaoh Neco, king of Egypt; and the\nlast king of all, Zedekiah, was appointed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of\nBabylon. In like manner, the Herods, the last rulers of the restored\nkingdom of Judah, were the nominees of the Roman emperors. Such\nnominations forcibly illustrate the degradations and ruin of the\ntheocratic monarchy. But yet, according to the teaching of the prophets,\nPharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar were tools in the hand of Jehovah; and their\nnomination was still an indirect Divine appointment. In the chronicler\u2019s\ntime, however, Judah was thoroughly accustomed to receive her governors\nfrom a Persian or Greek king; and Jewish readers would not be scandalised\nby a similar state of affairs in the closing years of the earlier kingdom.\n\nThus the reforming kings illustrate the ideal kingship set forth in the\nhistory of David and Solomon: the royal authority originates in, and is\ncontrolled by, the will of God and the consent of the people; the king\u2019s\nhighest duty is the maintenance of the worship of Jehovah; but the king\nand people are supreme both in Church and state.\n\nThe personal character of the good kings is also very similar to that of\nDavid and Solomon. Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah are men of spiritual\nfeeling as well as careful observers of correct ritual. None of the good\nkings, with the exception of Joash and Josiah, are unsuccessful in war;\nand good reasons are given for the exceptions. They all display\nadministrative ability by their buildings, the organisation of the Temple\nservices and the army, and the arrangements for the collection of the\nrevenue, especially the dues of the priests and Levites.\n\nThere is nothing, however, to indicate that the personal charm of David\u2019s\ncharacter was inherited by his descendants; but when biography is made\nmerely a means of edification, it often loses those touches of nature\nwhich make the whole world kin, and are capable of exciting either\nadmiration or disgust.\n\nThe later narrative affords another illustration of the absence of any\nsentiment of humanity towards enemies. As in the case of David, the\nchronicler records the cruelty of a good king as if it were quite\nconsistent with loyalty to Jehovah. Before he turned away from following\nJehovah, Amariah defeated the Edomites and smote ten thousand of them.\nOthers were treated like some of the Malagasy martyrs: \u201cAnd other ten\nthousand did the children of Judah carry away alive, and brought them unto\nthe top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that\nthey all were broken in pieces.\u201d(238) In this case, however, the\nchronicler is not simply reproducing Kings: he has taken the trouble to\nsupplement his main authority from some other source, probably local\ntradition. His insertion of this verse is another testimony to the undying\nhatred of Israel for Edom.\n\nBut in one respect the reforming kings are sharply distinguished from\nDavid and Solomon. The record of their lives is by no means blameless, and\ntheir sins are visited by condign chastisement. They all, with the single\nexception of Jotham, come to a bad end. Asa consulted physicians, and was\npunished by being allowed to die of a painful disease.(239) The last event\nof Jehoshaphat\u2019s life was the ruin of the navy, which he had built in\nunholy alliance with Ahaziah, king of Israel, who did very wickedly.(240)\nJoash murdered the prophet Zechariah, the son of the high-priest Jehoiada;\nhis great host was routed by a small company of Syrians, and Joash himself\nwas assassinated by his servants.(241) Amaziah turned away from following\nJehovah, and \u201cbrought the gods of the children of Seir, and set them up to\nbe his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burned incense unto\nthem.\u201d He was accordingly defeated by Joash, king of Israel, and\nassassinated by his own people.(242) Uzziah insisted on exercising the\npriestly function of burning incense to Jehovah, and so died a leper.(243)\n\u201cEven Hezekiah rendered not again according to the benefit done unto him,\nfor his heart was lifted up in the business of ambassadors of the princes\nof Babylon; therefore there was wrath upon him and upon Judah and\nJerusalem. Notwithstanding Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his\nheart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of\nJehovah came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah.\u201d But yet the last days\nof Hezekiah were clouded by the thought that he was leaving the punishment\nof his sin as a legacy to Judah and the house of David.(244) Josiah\nrefused to heed the warning sent to him by God through the king of Egypt:\n\u201cHe hearkened not unto the words of Neco from the mouth of God, and came\nto fight in the valley of Megiddo\u201d; and so Josiah died like Ahab: he was\nwounded by the archers, carried out of the battle in his chariot, and died\nat Jerusalem.(245)\n\nThe melancholy record of the misfortunes of the good kings in their\nclosing years is also found in the book of Kings. There too Asa in his old\nage was diseased in his feet, Jehoshaphat\u2019s ships were wrecked, Joash and\nAmaziah were assassinated, Uzziah became a leper, Hezekiah was rebuked for\nhis pride, and Josiah slain at Megiddo. But, except in the case of\nHezekiah, the book of Kings says nothing about the sins which, according\nto Chronicles, occasioned these sufferings and catastrophes. The narrative\nin the book of Kings carries upon the face of it the lesson that piety is\nnot usually rewarded with unbroken prosperity, and that a pious career\ndoes not necessarily ensure a happy deathbed. The significance of the\nchronicler\u2019s additions will be considered elsewhere; what concerns us here\nis his departure from the principles he observed in dealing with the lives\nof David and Solomon. They also sinned and suffered; but the chronicler\nomits their sins and sufferings, especially in the case of Solomon. Why\ndoes he pursue an opposite course with other good kings and blacken their\ncharacters by perpetuating the memory of sins not mentioned in the book of\nKings, instead of confining his record to the happier incidents of their\ncareer? Many considerations may have influenced him. The violent deaths of\nJoash, Amaziah, and Josiah could neither be ignored nor explained away.\nHezekiah\u2019s sin and repentance are closely parallel to David\u2019s in the\nmatter of the census. Although Asa\u2019s disease, Jehoshaphat\u2019s alliance with\nIsrael, and Uzziah\u2019s leprosy might easily have been omitted, yet, if some\nreformers must be allowed to remain imperfect, there was no imperative\nnecessity to ignore the infirmities of the rest. The great advantage of\nthe course pursued by the chronicler consisted in bringing out a clearly\ndefined contrast between David and Solomon on the one hand and the\nreforming kings on the other. The piety of the latter is conformed to the\nchronicler\u2019s ideal; but the glory and devotion of the former are enhanced\nby the crimes and humiliation of the best of their successors. Hezekiah,\ndoubtless, is not more culpable than David, but David\u2019s pride was the\nfirst of a series of events which terminated in the building of the\nTemple; while the uplifting of Hezekiah\u2019s heart was a precursor of its\ndestruction. Besides, Hezekiah ought to have prompted by David\u2019s\nexperience.\n\nBy developing this contrast, the chronicler renders the position of David\nand Solomon even more unique, illustrious, and full of religious\nsignificance.\n\nThus as illustrations of ideal kingship the accounts of the good kings of\nJudah are altogether subordinate to the history of David and Solomon.\nWhile these kings of Judah remain loyal to Jehovah, they further\nillustrate the virtues of their great predecessors by showing how these\nvirtues might have been exercised under different circumstances: how David\nwould have dealt with an Ethiopian invasion and what Solomon would have\ndone if he had found the Temple desecrated and its services stopped. But\nno essential feature is added to the earlier pictures.\n\nThe lapses of kings who began to walk in the law of the Lord and then fell\naway serve as foils to the undimmed glory of David and Solomon. Abrupt\ntransitions within the limits of the individual lives of Asa, Joash, and\nAmaziah bring out the contrast between piety and apostacy with startling,\ndramatic effect.\n\nWe return from this brief survey to consider the significance of the life\nof Solomon according to Chronicles. Its relation to the life of David is\nsummed up in the name Solomon, the Prince of peace. David is the ideal\nking, winning by force of arms for Israel empire and victory, security at\nhome and tribute from abroad. Utterly subdued by his prowess, the natural\nenemies of Israel no longer venture to disturb her tranquillity. His\nsuccessor inherits wide dominion, immense wealth, and assured peace.\nSolomon, the Prince of peace, is the ideal king, administering a great\ninheritance for the glory of Jehovah and His temple. His history in\nChronicles is one of unbroken calm. He has a great army and many strong\nfortresses, but he never has occasion to use them. He implores Jehovah to\nbe merciful to Israel when they suffer from the horrors of war; but he is\ninterceding, not for his own subjects, but for future generations. In his\ntime\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cNo war or battle\u2019s sound\n    Was heard the world around:\n        The idle spear and shield were high uphung;\n    The hook\u00e8d chariot stood\n    Unstained with hostile blood;\n        The trumpet spake not to the arm\u00e8d throng.\u201d(246)\n\n\nPerhaps, to use a paradox, the greatest proof of Solomon\u2019s wisdom was that\nhe asked for wisdom. He realised at the outset of his career that a wide\ndominion is more easily won than governed, that to use great wealth\nhonourably requires more skill and character than are needed to amass it.\nTo-day the world can boast half a dozen empires surpassing not merely\nIsrael, but even Rome, in extent of dominion; the aggregate wealth of the\nworld is far beyond the wildest dreams of the chronicler: but still the\npeople perish for lack of knowledge. The physical and moral foulness of\nmodern cities taints all the culture and tarnishes all the splendour of\nour civilisation; classes and trades, employers and employed, maim and\ncrush one another in blind struggles to work out a selfish salvation;\nnewly devised organisations move their unwieldy masses\u2014\n\n\n    \u201c... like dragons of the prime\n    That tare each other.\u201d(247)\n\n\nThey have a giant\u2019s strength, and use it like a giant. Knowledge comes,\nbut wisdom lingers; and the world waits for the reign of the Prince of\npeace who is not only the wise king, but the incarnate wisdom of God.\n\nThus one striking suggestion of the chronicler\u2019s history of Solomon is the\nspecial need of wisdom and Divine guidance for the administration of a\ngreat and prosperous empire.\n\nToo much stress, however, must not be laid on the twofold personality of\nthe ideal king. This feature is adopted from the history, and does not\nexpress any opinion of the chronicler that the characteristic gifts of\nDavid and Solomon could not be combined in a single individual. Many great\ngenerals have also been successful administrators. Before Julius C\u00e6sar was\nassassinated he had already shown his capacity to restore order and\ntranquillity to the Roman world; Alexander\u2019s plans for the civil\ngovernment of his conquests were as far-reaching as his warlike ambition;\nDiocletian reorganised the empire which his sword had re-established;\nCromwell\u2019s schemes of reform showed an almost prophetic insight into the\nfuture needs of the English people; the glory of Napoleon\u2019s victories is a\ndoubtful legacy to France compared with the solid benefits of his internal\nreforms.\n\nBut even these instances, which illustrate the union of military genius\nand administrative ability, remind us that the assignment of success in\nwar to one king and a reign of peace to the next is, after all, typical.\nThe limits of human life narrow its possibilities. C\u00e6sar\u2019s work had to be\ncompleted by Augustus; the great schemes of Alexander and Cromwell fell to\nthe ground because no one arose to play Solomon to their David.\n\nThe chronicler has specially emphasised the indebtedness of Solomon to\nDavid. According to his narrative, the great achievement of Solomon\u2019s\nreign, the building of the Temple, has been rendered possible by David\u2019s\npreparations. Quite apart from plans and materials, the chronicler\u2019s view\nof the credit due to David in this matter is only a reasonable recognition\nof service rendered to the religion of Israel. Whoever provided the timber\nand stone, the silver and gold, for the Temple, David won for Jehovah the\nland and the city that were the outer courts of the sanctuary, and roused\nthe national spirit that gave to Zion its most solemn consecration.\nSolomon\u2019s temple was alike the symbol of David\u2019s achievements and the\ncoping-stone of his work.\n\nBy compelling our attention to the dependence of the Prince of Peace upon\nthe man who \u201chad shed much blood,\u201d the chronicler admonishes us against\nforgetting the price that has been paid for liberty and culture. The\nsplendid courtiers whose \u201capparel\u201d specially pleased the feminine tastes\nof the queen of Sheba might feel all the contempt of the superior person\nfor David\u2019s war-worn veterans. The latter probably were more at home in\nthe \u201cstore cities\u201d than at Jerusalem. But without the blood and toil of\nthese rough soldiers Solomon would have had no opportunity to exchange\nriddles with his fair visitor and to dazzle her admiring eyes with the\nglories of his temple and palaces.\n\nThe blessings of peace are not likely to be preserved unless men still\nappreciate and cherish the stern virtues that flourish in troubled times.\nIf our own times become troubled, and their serenity be invaded by fierce\nconflict, it will be ours to remember that the rugged life of \u201cthe hold in\nthe wilderness\u201d and the struggles with the Philistines may enable a later\ngeneration to build its temple to the Lord and to learn the answers to\n\u201chard questions.\u201d(248) Moses and Joshua, David and Solomon, remind us\nagain how the Divine work is handed on from generation to generation:\nMoses leads Israel through the wilderness, but Joshua brings them into the\nLand of Promise; David collects the materials, but Solomon builds the\nTemple. The settlement in Palestine and the building of the Temple were\nonly episodes in the working out of the \u201cone increasing purpose,\u201d but one\nleader and one life-time did not suffice for either episode. We grow\nimpatient of the scale upon which God works: we want it reduced to the\nlimits of our human faculties and of our earthly lives; yet all history\npreaches patience. In our demand for Divine interventions whereby\u2014\n\n\n                    \u201c... sudden in a minute\n    All is accomplished, and the work is done,\u201d\n\n\nwe are very Esaus, eager to sell the birthright of the future for a mess\nof pottage to-day.\n\nAnd the continuity of the Divine purpose is only realised through the\ncontinuity of human effort. We must indeed serve our own generation; but\npart of that service consists in providing that the next generation shall\nbe trained to carry on the work, and that after David shall come\nSolomon\u2014the Solomon of Chronicles, and not the Solomon of Kings\u2014and that,\nif possible, Solomon shall not be succeeded by Rehoboam. As we attain this\nlarger outlook, we shall be less tempted to employ doubtful means, which\nare supposed to be justified by their end; we shall be less enthusiastic\nfor processes that bring \u201cquick returns,\u201d but give very \u201csmall profits\u201d in\nthe long run. Christian workers are a little too fond of spiritual\njerry-building, as if sites in the kingdom of heaven were let out on\nninety-nine-year leases; but God builds for eternity, and we are\nfellow-workers together with Him.\n\nTo complete the chronicler\u2019s picture of the ideal king, we have to add\nDavid\u2019s warlike prowess and Solomon\u2019s wisdom and splendour to the piety\nand graces common to both. The result is unique among the many pictures\nthat have been drawn by historians, philosophers, and poets. It has a\nvalue of its own, because the chronicler\u2019s gifts in the way of history,\nphilosophy, and poetry were entirely subordinated to his interest in\ntheology; and most theologians have only been interested in the doctrine\nof the king when they could use it to gratify the vanity of a royal\npatron.\n\nThe full-length portrait in Chronicles contrasts curiously with the little\nvignette preserved in the book which bears the name of Solomon. There, in\nthe oracle which King Lemuel\u2019s mother taught him, the king is simply\nadmonished to avoid strange women and strong drink, to \u201cjudge righteously,\nand minister judgment to the poor and needy.\u201d(249)\n\nTo pass to more modern theology, the theory of the king that is implied in\nChronicles has much in common with Wyclif\u2019s doctrine of dominion: they\nboth recognise the sanctity of the royal power and its temporal supremacy,\nand they both hold that obedience to God is the condition of the continued\nexercise of legitimate rule. But the priest of Lutterworth was less\necclesiastical and more democratic than our Levite.\n\nA more orthodox authority on the Protestant doctrine of the king would be\nthe Thirty-nine Articles. These, however, deal with the subject somewhat\nslightly. As far as they go, they are in harmony with the chronicler. They\nassert the unqualified supremacy of the king, both ecclesiastical and\ncivil. Even \u201cgeneral councils may not be gathered together without the\ncommandment and will of princes.\u201d(250) On the other hand, princes are not\nto imitate Uzziah in presuming to exercise the priestly function of\noffering incense: they are not to minister God\u2019s word or sacraments.\n\nOutside theology the ideal of the king has been stated with greater\nfulness and freedom, but not many of the pictures drawn have much in\ncommon with the chronicler\u2019s David and Solomon. Machiavelli\u2019s prince and\nBolingbroke\u2019s patriot king belong to a different world; moreover, their\nmethod is philosophical, and not historical: they state a theory rather\nthan draw a picture. Tennyson\u2019s Arthur is, what he himself calls him, an\n\u201cideal knight\u201d rather than an ideal king. Perhaps the best parallels to\nDavid are to be found in the Cyrus of the Greek historians and\nphilosophers and the Alfred of English story. Alfred indeed combines many\nof the features both of David and Solomon: he secured English unity, and\nwas the founder of English culture and literature; he had a keen interest\nin ecclesiastical affairs, great gifts of administration, and much\npersonal attractiveness. Cyrus, again, specially illustrates what we may\ncall the posthumous fortunes of David: his name stood for the ideal of\nkingship with both Greeks and Persians, and in the _Cyrop\u00e6dia_ his life\nand character are made the basis of a picture of the ideal king.\n\nMany points are of course common to almost all such pictures; they portray\nthe king as a capable and benevolent ruler and a man of high personal\ncharacter. The distinctive characteristic of Chronicles is the stress laid\non the piety of the king, his care for the honour of God and the spiritual\nwelfare of his subjects. If the practical influence of this teaching has\nnot been altogether beneficent, it is because men have too invariably\nconnected spiritual profit with organisation, and ceremonies, and forms of\nwords, sound or otherwise.\n\nBut to-day the doctrine of the state takes the place of the doctrine of\nthe king. Instead of Cyrop\u00e6dias we have Utopias. We are asked sometimes to\nlook back, not to an ideal king, but to an ideal commonwealth, to the age\nof the Antonines or to some happy century of English history when we are\ntold that the human race or the English people were \u201cmost happy and\nprosperous\u201d; oftener we are invited to contemplate an imaginary future. We\nmay add to those already made one or two further applications of the\nchronicler\u2019s principles to the modern state. His method suggests that the\nperfect society will have the virtues of our actual life without its\nvices, and that the possibilities of the future are best divined from a\ncareful study of the past. The devotion of his kings to the Temple\nsymbolises the truth that the ideal state is impossible without\nrecognition of a Divine presence and obedience to a Divine will.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VII. The Wicked Kings. 2 Chron. xxviii., etc.\n\n\nThe type of the wicked king is not worked out with any fulness in\nChronicles. There are wicked kings, but no one is raised to the \u201cbad\neminence\u201d of an evil counterpart to David; there is no anti-David, so to\nspeak, no prototype of antichrist. The story of Ahaz, for instance, is not\ngiven at the same length and with the same wealth of detail as that of\nDavid. The subject was not so congenial to the kindly heart of the\nchronicler. He was not imbued with the unhappy spirit of modern realism,\nwhich loves to dwell on all that is foul and ghastly in life and\ncharacter; he lingered affectionately over his heroes, and contented\nhimself with brief notices of his villains. In so doing he was largely\nfollowing his main authority: the books of Samuel and Kings. There too the\nstories of David and Solomon, of Elijah and Elisha, are told much more\nfully than those of Jeroboam and Ahab.\n\nBut the mention of these names reminds us that the chronicler\u2019s limitation\nof his subject to the history of Judah excludes much of the material that\nmight have been drawn from the earlier history for a picture of the wicked\nking. If it had been part of the chronicler\u2019s plan to tell the story of\nAhab, he might have been led to develop his material and moralise upon the\nking\u2019s career till the narrative assumed proportions that would have\nrivalled the history of David. Over against the great scene that closed\nDavid\u2019s life might have been set another summing up in one dramatic moment\nthe guilt and ruin of Ahab. But these schismatic kings were \u201calienated\nfrom the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of the\npromise, having no hope and without God in the world.\u201d(251) The\ndisobedient sons of the house of David were still children within the\nhome, who might be rebuked and punished; but the Samaritan kings, as the\nchronicler might style them, were outcasts, left to the tender mercies of\nthe dogs, and sorcerers, and murderers that were without the Holy City,\nCains without any protecting mark upon their forehead.\n\nHence the wicked kings in Chronicles are of the house of David. Therefore\nthe chronicler has a certain tenderness for them, partly for the sake of\ntheir great ancestor, partly because they are kings of Judah, partly\nbecause of the sanctity and religious significance of the Messianic\ndynasty. These kings are not Esaus, for whom there is no place of\nrepentance. The chronicler is happy in being able to discover and record\nthe conversion, as we should term it, of some kings whose reigns began in\nrebellion and apostacy. By a curious compensation, the kings who begin\nwell end badly, and those who begin badly end well; they all tend to about\nthe same average. We read of Rehoboam(252) that \u201cwhen he humbled himself\nthe wrath of the Lord turned from him, that he would not destroy him\naltogether; and, moreover, in Judah there were good things found\u201d; the\nwickedness of Abijah, which is plainly set forth in the book of\nKings,(253) is ignored in Chronicles; Manasseh \u201chumbled himself greatly\nbefore the God of his fathers,\u201d and turned altogether from the error of\nhis ways(254); the unfavourable judgment on Jehoahaz recorded in the book\nof Kings, \u201cAnd he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord,\naccording to all that his fathers had done,\u201d(255) is omitted in\nChronicles.\n\nThere remain seven wicked kings of whom nothing but evil is recorded:\nJehoram, Ahaziah, Ahaz, Amon, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. Of\nthese we may take Ahaz as the most typical instance. As in the cases of\nDavid and Solomon, we will first see how the chronicler has dealt with the\nmaterial derived from the book of Kings; then we will give his account of\nthe career of Ahaz; and finally, by a brief comparison of what is told of\nAhaz with the history of the other wicked kings, we will try to construct\nthe chronicler\u2019s idea of the wicked king and to deduce its lessons.\n\nThe importance of the additions made by the chronicler to the history in\nthe book of Kings will appear later on. In his account of the attack made\nupon Ahaz by Rezin, king of Damascus, and Pekah, king of Israel, he\nemphasises the incidents most discreditable to Ahaz. The book of Kings\nsimply states that the two allies \u201ccame up to Jerusalem to war; and they\nbesieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him\u201d(256); Chronicles dwells upon\nthe sufferings and losses inflicted on Judah by this invasion. The book of\nKings might have conveyed the impression that the wicked king had been\nallowed to triumph over his enemies; Chronicles guards against this\ndangerous error by detailing the disasters that Ahaz brought upon his\ncountry.\n\nThe book of Kings also contains an interesting account of alterations made\nby Ahaz in the Temple and its furniture. By his orders the high-priest\nUrijah made a new brazen altar for the Temple after the pattern of an\naltar that Ahaz had seen in Damascus. As Chronicles narrates the closing\nof the Temple by Ahaz, it naturally omits these previous alterations.\nMoreover, Urijah appears in the book of Isaiah as a friend of the prophet,\nand is referred to by him as a \u201cfaithful witness.\u201d(257) The chronicler\nwould not wish to perplex his readers with the problem, How could the\nhigh-priest, whom Isaiah trusted as a faithful witness, become the agent\nof a wicked king, and construct an altar for Jehovah after a heathen\npattern?\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s story of Ahaz runs thus. This wicked king had been\npreceded by three good kings: Amaziah, Uzziah, and Jotham. Amaziah indeed\nhad turned away from following Jehovah at the end of his reign, but Uzziah\nhad been zealous for Jehovah throughout, not wisely, but too well; and\nJotham shares with Solomon the honour of a blameless record. Without\ncounting Amaziah\u2019s reign, king and people had been loyal to Jehovah for\nsixty or seventy years. The court of the good kings would be the centre of\npiety and devotion. Ahaz, no doubt, had been carefully trained in\nobedience to the law of Jehovah, and had grown up in the atmosphere of\ntrue religion. Possibly he had known his grandfather Uzziah in the days of\nhis power and glory; but at any rate, while Ahaz was a child, Uzziah was\nliving as a leper in his \u201cseveral house,\u201d and Ahaz must have been familiar\nwith this melancholy warning against presumptuous interference with the\nDivine ordinances of worship.\n\nAhaz was twenty years old when he came to the throne, so that he had time\nto profit by a complete education, and should scarcely have found\nopportunity to break away from its influence. His mother\u2019s name is not\nmentioned, so that we cannot say whether, as may have been the case with\nRehoboam, some Ammonite woman led him astray from the God of his fathers.\nAs far as we can learn from our author, Ahaz sinned against light and\nknowledge; with every opportunity and incentive to keep in the right path,\nhe yet went astray.\n\nThis is a common feature in the careers of the wicked kings. It has often\nbeen remarked that the first great specialist on education failed utterly\nin the application of his theories to his own son. Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah,\nand Josiah were the most distinguished and the most virtuous of the\nreforming kings, yet Jehoshaphat was succeeded by Jehoram, who was almost\nas wicked as Ahaz; Hezekiah\u2019s son \u201cManasseh made Judah and the inhabitants\nof Jerusalem to err, so that they did evil more than did the nations whom\nthe Lord destroyed before the children of Israel\u201d;(258) Josiah\u2019s son and\ngrandsons \u201cdid evil in the sight of the Lord.\u201d(259)\n\nMany reasons may be suggested for this too familiar spectacle: the impious\nson of a godly father, the bad successor of a good king. Heirs-apparent\nhave always been inclined to head an opposition to their fathers\u2019 policy,\nand sometimes on their accession they have reversed that policy. When the\nfather himself has been a zealous reformer, the interests that have been\nharassed by reform are eager to encourage his successor in a retrograde\npolicy; and reforming zeal is often tinged with an inconsiderate harshness\nthat provokes the opposition of younger and brighter spirits. But, after\nall, this atavism in kings is chiefly an illustration of the slow growth\nof the higher nature in man. Practically each generation starts afresh\nwith an unregenerate nature of its own, and often nature is too strong for\neducation.\n\nMoreover, a young king of Judah was subject to the evil influence of his\nnorthern neighbour. Judah was often politically subservient to Samaria,\nand politics and religion have always been very intimately associated. At\nthe accession of Ahaz the throne of Samaria was filled by Pekah, whose\ntwenty years\u2019 tenure of authority indicates ability and strength of\ncharacter. It is not difficult to understand how Ahaz was led \u201cto walk in\nthe ways of the kings of Israel\u201d and \u201cto make molten images for the\nBaals.\u201d\n\nNothing is told us of the actual circumstances of these innovations. The\nnew reign was probably inaugurated by the dismissal of Jotham\u2019s ministers\nand the appointment of the personal favourites of the new king. The\nrestoration of old idolatrous cults would be a natural advertisement of a\nnew departure in the government. So when the establishment of Christianity\nwas a novelty in the empire, and men were not assured of its permanence,\nJulian\u2019s accession was accompanied by an apostacy to paganism; and later\naspirants to the purple promised to follow his example. But the worship of\nJehovah was not at once suppressed. He was not deposed from His throne as\nthe Divine King of Judah; He was only called upon to share His royal\nauthority with the Baals of the neighbouring peoples.\n\nBut although the Temple services might still be performed, the king was\nmainly interested in introducing and observing a variety of heathen rites.\nThe priesthood of the Temple saw their exclusive privileges disregarded\nand the rival sanctuaries of the high places and the sacred trees taken\nunder royal patronage. But the king\u2019s apostacy was not confined to the\nmilder forms of idolatry. His weak mind was irresistibly attracted by the\nmorbid fascination of the cruel rites of Moloch: \u201cHe burnt incense in the\nvalley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, according\nto the abomination of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out before the\nchildren of Israel.\u201d\n\nThe king\u2019s devotions to his new gods were rudely interrupted. The insulted\nmajesty of Jehovah was vindicated by two disastrous invasions. First, Ahaz\nwas defeated by Rezin, king of Syria, who carried away a great multitude\nof captives to Damascus; the next enemy was one of those kings of Israel\nin whose idolatrous ways Ahaz had chosen to walk. The delicate flattery\nimplied by Ahaz becoming Pekah\u2019s proselyte failed to conciliate that\nmonarch. He too defeated the Jews with great slaughter. Amongst his\nwarriors was a certain Zichri, whose achievements recalled the prowess of\nDavid\u2019s mighty men: he slew Maaseiah the king\u2019s son and Azrikam, the ruler\nof the house, the Lord High Chamberlain, and Elkanah, that was next unto\nthe king, the Prime Minister. With these notables, there perished in a\nsingle day a hundred and twenty thousand Jews, all of them valiant men.\nTheir wives and children, to the number of two hundred thousand, were\ncarried captive to Samaria. All these misfortunes happened to Judah\n\u201cbecause they had forsaken Jehovah, the God of their fathers.\u201d\n\nAnd yet Jehovah in wrath remembered mercy. The Israelite army approached\nSamaria with their endless train of miserable captives, women and\nchildren, ragged and barefoot, some even naked, filthy and footsore with\nforced marches, left hungry and thirsty after prisoners\u2019 scanty rations.\nMultiply a thousandfold the scenes depicted on Egyptian and Assyrian\nmonuments, and you have the picture of this great slave caravan. The\ncaptives probably had no reason to fear the barbarities which the\nAssyrians loved to inflict upon their prisoners, but yet their prospects\nwere sufficiently gloomy. Before them lay a life of drudgery and\ndegradation in Samaria. The more wealthy might hope to be ransomed by\ntheir friends; others, again, might be sold to the Ph\u0153nician traders, to\nbe carried by them to the great slave marts of Nineveh and Babylon or even\noversea to Greece. But in a moment all was changed. \u201cThere was a prophet\nof Jehovah, whose name was Oded, and he went out to meet the army and said\nunto them, Behold, because Jehovah, the God of your fathers, was wroth\nwith Judah, He hath delivered them into your hand; and ye have slain them\nin a rage which hath reached up unto heaven. And now ye purpose to keep\nthe children of Judah and of Jerusalem for male and female slaves; but are\nthere not even with you trespasses of your own against Jehovah your God?\nNow hear me therefore, and send back the captives, for the fierce wrath of\nJehovah is upon you.\u201d\n\nMeanwhile \u201cthe princes and all the congregation of Samaria\u201d were waiting\nto welcome their victorious army, possibly in \u201cthe void place at the\nentering in of the gate of Samaria.\u201d Oded\u2019s words, at any rate, had been\nuttered in their presence. The army did not at once respond to the appeal;\nthe two hundred thousand slaves were the most valuable part of their\nspoil, and they were not eager to make so great a sacrifice. But the\nprinces made Oded\u2019s message their own. Four heads of the children of\nEphraim are mentioned by name as the spokesmen of the \u201ccongregation,\u201d the\nking being apparently absent on some other warlike expedition. These four\nwere Azariah the son of Johanan, Berechiah the son of Meshillemoth,\nJehizkiah the son of Shallum, and Amasa the son of Hadlai. Possibly among\nthe children of Ephraim who dwelt in Jerusalem after the Return there were\ndescendants of these men, from whom the chronicler obtained the\nparticulars of this incident. The princes \u201cstood up against them that came\nfrom the war,\u201d and forbade their bringing the captives into the city. They\nrepeated and expanded the words of the prophet: \u201cYe purpose that which\nwill bring upon us a trespass against Jehovah, to add unto our sins and to\nour trespass, for our trespass is great, and there is fierce wrath against\nIsrael.\u201d The army were either convinced by the eloquence or overawed by\nthe authority of the prophet and the princes: \u201cThey left the captives and\nthe spoil before all the princes and the congregation.\u201d And the four\nprinces \u201crose up, and took the captives, and with the spoil clothed all\nthat were naked among them, and arrayed them, and shod them, and gave them\nto eat and to drink, and anointed them, and carried all the feeble of them\nupon asses, and brought them to Jericho, the city of palm trees, unto\ntheir brethren; then they returned to Samaria.\u201d\n\nApart from incidental allusions, this is the last reference in Chronicles\nto the northern kingdom. The long history of division and hostility closes\nwith this humane recognition of the brotherhood of Israel and Judah. The\nsun, so to speak, did not go down upon their wrath. But the king of Israel\nhad no personal share in this gracious act. At the first it was Jeroboam\nthat made Israel to sin; throughout the history the responsibility for the\ncontinued division would specially rest upon the kings, and at the last\nthere is no sign of Pekah\u2019s repentance and no prospect of his pardon.\n\nThe various incidents of the invasions of Rezin and Pekah were alike a\nsolemn warning and an impressive appeal to the apostate king of Judah. He\nhad multiplied to himself gods of the nations round about, and yet had\nbeen left without an ally, at the mercy of a hostile confederation,\nagainst whom his new gods either could not or would not defend him. The\nwrath of Jehovah had brought upon Ahaz one crushing defeat after another,\nand yet the only mitigation of the sufferings of Judah had also been the\nwork of Jehovah. The returning captives would tell Ahaz and his princes\nhow in schismatic and idolatrous Samaria a prophet of Jehovah had stood\nforth to secure their release and obtain for them permission to return\nhome. The princes and people of Samaria had hearkened to his message, and\nthe two hundred thousand captives stood there as the monument of Jehovah\u2019s\ncompassion and of the obedient piety of Israel. Sin was bound to bring\npunishment; and yet Jehovah waited to be gracious. Wherever there was room\nfor mercy, He would show mercy. His wrath and His compassion had alike\nbeen displayed before Ahaz. Other gods could not protect their worshippers\nagainst Him; He only could deliver and restore His people. He had not even\nwaited for Ahaz to repent before He had given him proof of His willingness\nto forgive.(260)\n\nSuch Divine goodness was thrown away upon Ahaz; there was no token of\nrepentance, no promise of amendment; and so Jehovah sent further judgments\nupon the king and his unhappy people. The Edomites came and smote Judah,\nand carried away captives; the Philistines also invaded the cities of the\nlowland and of the south of Judah, and took Beth-shemesh, Aijalon,\nGederoth, Soco, Timnah, Gimzo, and their dependent villages, and dwelt in\nthem; and Jehovah brought Judah low because of Ahaz. And the king hardened\nhis heart yet more against Jehovah, and cast away all restraint, and\ntrespassed sore against Jehovah. Instead of submitting himself, he sought\nthe aid of the kings of Assyria, only to receive another proof of the\nvanity of all earthly help so long as he remained unreconciled to Heaven.\nTilgath-pilneser, king of Assyria, welcomed this opportunity of\ninterfering in the affairs of Western Asia, and saw attractive prospects\nof levying blackmail impartially on his ally and his enemies. He came unto\nAhaz, \u201cand distressed him, but strengthened him not.\u201d These new troubles\nwere the occasion of fresh wickedness on the part of the king: to pay the\nprice of this worse than useless intervention, he took away a portion not\nonly from his own treasury and from the princes, but also from the\ntreasury of the Temple, and gave it to the king of Assyria.\n\nThus betrayed and plundered by his new ally, he trespassed \u201cyet more\nagainst Jehovah, this same king Ahaz.\u201d It is almost incredible that one\nman could be guilty of so much sin; the chronicler is anxious that his\nreaders should appreciate the extraordinary wickedness of this man, this\nsame king Ahaz. In him the chastening of the Lord yielded no peaceable\nfruit of righteousness; he would not see that his misfortunes were sent\nfrom the offended God of Israel. With perverse ingenuity, he found in them\nan incentive to yet further wickedness. His pantheon was not large enough.\nHe had omitted to worship the gods of Damascus. These must be powerful\ndeities, whom it would be worth while to conciliate, because they had\nenabled the kings of Syria to overrun and pillage Judah. Therefore Ahaz\nsacrificed to the gods of Syria, that they might help him. \u201cBut,\u201d says the\nchronicler, \u201cthey were the ruin of him and of all Israel.\u201d Still Ahaz went\non consistently with his policy of comprehensive eclecticism. He made\nJerusalem a very Athens for altars, which were set up at every street\ncorner; he discovered yet other gods whom it might be advisable to adore:\n\u201cAnd in every several city of Judah he made high places to burn incense\nunto other gods.\u201d\n\nHitherto Jehovah had still received some share of the worship of this most\nreligious king, but apparently Ahaz came to regard Him as the least\npowerful of his many supernatural allies. He attributed his misfortunes,\nnot to the anger, but to the helplessness, of Jehovah. Jehovah was\nspecially the God of Israel; if disaster after disaster fell upon His\npeople, He was evidently less potent than Baal, or Moloch, or Rimmon. It\nwas a useless expense to maintain the worship of so impotent a deity.\nPerhaps the apostate king was acting in the blasphemous spirit of the\nsavage who flogs his idol when his prayers are not answered. Jehovah, he\nthought, should be punished for His neglect of the interests of Judah.\n\u201cAhaz gathered together the vessels of the house of God, and cut in pieces\nthe vessels of the house of God, and shut up the doors of the house of\nJehovah\u201d;(261) he had filled up the measure of his iniquities.\n\nAnd thus it came to pass that in the Holy City, \u201cwhich Jehovah had chosen\nto cause His name to dwell there,\u201d almost the only deity who was not\nworshipped was Jehovah. Ahaz did homage to the gods of all the nations\nbefore whom he had been humiliated; the royal sacrifices smoked upon a\nhundred altars, but no sweet savour of burnt offering ascended to Jehovah.\nThe fragrance of the perpetual incense no longer filled the holy place\nmorning and evening; the seven lamps of the golden candlestick were put\nout, and the Temple was given up to darkness and desolation. Ahaz had\ncontented himself with stripping the sanctuary of its treasures; but the\nbuilding itself, though closed, suffered no serious injury. A stranger\nvisiting the city, and finding it full of idols, could not fail to notice\nthe great pile of the Temple and to inquire what image, splendid above all\nothers, occupied that magnificent shrine. Like Pompey, he would learn with\nsurprise that it was not the dwelling-place of any image, but the symbol\nof an almighty and invisible presence. Even if the stranger were some\nMoabite worshipper of Chemosh, he would feel dismay at the wanton\nprofanity with which Ahaz had abjured the God of his fathers and\ndesecrated the temple built by his great ancestors. The annals of Egypt\nand Babylon told of the misfortunes which had befallen those monarchs who\nwere unfaithful to their national gods. The pious heathen would anticipate\ndisaster as the punishment of Ahaz\u2019s apostacy.\n\nMeanwhile the ministers of the Temple shared its ruin and degradation; but\nthey could feel the assurance that Jehovah would yet recall His people to\ntheir allegiance and manifest Himself once more in the Temple. The house\nof Aaron and the tribe of Levi possessed their souls in patience till the\nfinal judgment of Jehovah should fall upon the apostate. They had not long\nto wait: after a reign of only sixteen years, Ahaz died at the early age\nof thirty-six. We are not told that he died in battle or by the visitation\nof God. His health may have been broken by his many misfortunes, or by\nvicious practices that would naturally accompany his manifold idolatries;\nbut in any case his early death would be regarded as a Divine judgment.\nThe breath was scarcely out of his body before his religious innovations\nwere swept away by a violent reaction. The people at once passed sentence\nof condemnation on his memory: \u201cThey brought him not into the sepulchres\nof the kings of Israel.\u201d(262) His successor inaugurated his reign by\nreopening the Temple, and brought back Judah to the obedience of Jehovah.\nThe monuments of the impious worship of the wicked king, his multitudinous\nidols, and their ritual passed away like an evil dream, like \u201cthe track of\na ship in the sea or a bird in the air.\u201d\n\nThe leading features of this career are common to most of the wicked kings\nand to the evil days of the good kings \u201cWalking in the ways of the kings\nof Israel\u201d was the great crime of Jehoshaphat and his successors Jehoram\nand Ahaziah. Other kings, like Manasseh, built high places and followed\nafter the abominations of the heathen whom Jehovah cast out before the\nchildren of Israel. Asa\u2019s lapse into wickedness began by plundering the\nTemple treasury to purchase an alliance with a heathen king, the king of\nSyria, against whose successor Ahaz in his turn hired the king of Assyria.\nAmaziah adopted the gods of Edom, as Ahaz the gods of Syria, but with less\nexcuse, for Amaziah had conquered Edom. Other crimes are recorded among\nthe evil doings of the kings: Asa had recourse to physicians, that is,\nprobably to magic; Jehoram slew his brethren; Joash murdered the son of\nhis benefactor Jehoiada; but the supreme sin was disloyalty to Jehovah and\nthe Temple, and of this sin the chronicler\u2019s brief history of Ahaz is the\nmost striking illustration. Ahaz is the typical apostate: he hardens his\nheart alike against the mercy of Jehovah and against His repeated\njudgment. He is a very Pharaoh among the kings of Judah. The discipline\nthat should have led to repentance is continually perverted to be the\noccasion of new sin, and at last the apostate dies in his iniquity. The\neffect of the picture is heightened by its insistence on this one sin of\napostacy; other sins are illustrated and condemned elsewhere, but here the\nchronicler would have us concentrate our attention on the rise, progress,\nand ruin of the apostate. Indeed, this one sin implied and involved all\nothers; the man who suppressed the worship of Jehovah, and revelled in the\nobscene superstitions of heathen cults, was obviously capable of any\nenormity. The chronicler is not indifferent to morality as compared with\nritual, and he sees in the neglect of Divinely appointed ritual an\nindication of a character rotten through and through. In his time neglect\nof ritual on the part of the average man or the average king implied\nneglect of religion, or rather adherence to an alien and immoral faith.\n\nThus the supreme sin of the wicked kings naturally contrasts with the\nhighest virtue of the good kings. The standing of both is determined by\ntheir attitude towards Jehovah. The character of the good kings is\ndeveloped in greater detail than that of their wicked brethren; but we\nshould not misrepresent the chronicler\u2019s views, if we ascribed to the\nwicked kings all the vices antithetic to the virtues of his royal ideal.\nNevertheless the picture actually drawn fixes our attention upon their\nimpious denial of the God of Israel. Much Church history has been written\non the same principle: Constantine is a saint because he established\nChristianity; Julian is an incarnation of wickedness because he became an\napostate; we praise the orthodox Theodosius, and blame the Arian Valens.\nProtestant historians have canonised Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, and have\nprefixed an unholy epithet to the name of their kinswoman, while Romanist\nwriters interchange these verdicts. But underlying even such opposite\njudgments there is the same valid principle, the principle that was in the\nmind of the chronicler: that the king\u2019s relation to the highest and purest\ntruth accessible to him, whatever that truth may be, is a just criterion\nof his whole character. The historian may err in applying the criterion,\nbut its general principle is none the less sound.\n\nFor the character of the wicked nation we are not left to the general\nsuggestions that may be derived from the wicked king. The prophets show us\nthat it was by no vicarious condemnation that priests and people shared\nthe ruin of their sovereign. In their pages the subject is treated from\nmany points of view: Israel and Judah, Edom and Tyre, Egypt, Assyria, and\nBabylon, serve in their turn as models for the picture of the wicked\nnation. In the Apocalypse the ancient picture is adapted to new\ncircumstances, and the City of the Seven Hills takes the place of Babylon.\nModern prophets have further adapted the treatment of the subject to their\nown times, and for the most part to their own people. With stern and\nuncompromising patriotism, Carlyle and Ruskin have sought righteousness\nfor England even at the expense of its reputation; they have emphasised\nits sin and selfishness in order to produce repentance and reform. For\nother teachers the history of foreign peoples has furnished the picture of\nthe wicked nation, and the France of the Revolution or the \u201cunspeakable\u201d\nTurk has been held up as an example of all that is abominable in national\nlife.\n\nAny detailed treatment of this theme in Scripture would need an\nexposition, not merely of Chronicles, but of the whole Bible. We may,\nhowever, make one general application of the chronicler\u2019s principle that\nthe wicked nation is the nation that forgets God. We do not now measure a\npeople\u2019s religion by the number and magnificence of its priests and\nchurches, or by the amount of money devoted to the maintenance of public\nworship. The most fatal symptoms of national depravity are the absence of\na healthy public opinion, indifference to character in politics, neglect\nof education as a means of developing character, and the stifling of the\nspirit of brotherhood in a desperate struggle for existence. When God is\nthus forgotten, and the gracious influences of His Spirit are no longer\nrecognised in public and private life, a country may well be degraded into\nthe ranks of the wicked nations.\n\nThe perfectly general terms in which the doings and experiences of Ahaz\nare described facilitate the application of their warnings to the ordinary\nindividual. His royal station only appears in the form and scale of his\nwickedness, which in its essence is common to him with the humblest\nsinner. Every young man enters, like Ahaz, upon a royal inheritance;\ncharacter and career are as all-important to a peasant or a shopgirl as\nthey are to an emperor or a queen. When a girl of seventeen or a youth of\ntwenty succeeds to some historic throne, we are moved to think of the\nheavy burden of responsibility laid upon inexperienced shoulders and of\nthe grave issues that must be determined during the swiftly passing years\nof their early manhood and womanhood. Alas, this heavy burden and these\ngrave issues are but the common lot. The young sovereign is happy in the\nfierce light that beats upon his throne, for he is not allowed to forget\nthe dignity and importance of life. History, with its stories of good and\nwicked kings, has obviously been written for his instruction; if the time\nbe out of joint, as it mostly is, he has been born to set it right. It is\nall true, yet it is equally true for every one of his subjects. His lot is\nonly the common lot set upon a hill, in the full sunlight, to illustrate,\ninterpret, and influence lower and obscurer lives. People take such eager\ninterest in the doings of royal families, their christenings, weddings,\nand funerals, because therein the common experience is, as it were,\nglorified into adequate dignity and importance.\n\n\u201cAhaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen\nyears in Jerusalem\u201d; but most men and women begin to reign before they are\ntwenty. The history of Judah for those sixteen years was really determined\nlong before Ahaz was invested with crown and sceptre. Men should all be\neducated to reign, to respect themselves and appreciate their\nopportunities. We do in some measure adopt this principle with promising\nlads. Their energies are stimulated by the prospect of making a fortune or\na name, or the more soaring imagination dreams of a seat on the woolsack\nor on one of the Front Benches. Gifted girls are also encouraged, as\nbecomes their gifts, to achieve a brilliant marriage or a popular novel.\nWe need to apply the principle more consistently and to recognise the\nroyal dignity of the average life and of those whom the superior person is\npleased to call commonplace people. It may then be possible to induce the\nordinary young man to take a serious interest in his own future. The\nstress laid on the sanctity and supreme value of the individual soul has\nalways been a vital element of evangelical teaching; like most other\nevangelical truths, it is capable of deeper meaning and wider application\nthan are commonly recognised in systematic theology.\n\nWe have kept our sovereign waiting too long on the threshold of his\nkingdom; his courtiers and his people are impatient to know the character\nand intentions of their new master. So with every heir who succeeds to his\nroyal inheritance. The fortunes of millions may depend upon the will of\nsome young Czar or Kaiser; the happiness of a hundred tenants or of a\nthousand workmen may rest on the disposition of the youthful inheritor of\na wide estate or a huge factory; but none the less in the poorest cottage\nmother and father and friends wait with trembling anxiety to see how the\nboy or girl will \u201cturn out\u201d when they take their destinies into their own\nhands and begin to reign. Already perhaps some tender maiden watches in\nhope and fear, in mingled pride and misgiving, the rapidly unfolding\ncharacter of the youth to whom she has promised to commit all the\nhappiness of a life-time.\n\nAnd to each one in turn there comes the choice of Hercules; according to\nthe chronicler\u2019s phrase, the young king may either \u201cdo right in the eyes\nof Jehovah, like David his father,\u201d or he may walk \u201cin the ways of the\nkings of Israel, and make molten images for the Baals.\u201d\n\nThe \u201cright doings of David his father\u201d may point to family traditions,\nwhich set a high standard of noble conduct for each succeeding generation.\nThe teaching and influence of the pious Jotham are represented by the\nexample of godliness set in many a Christian home, by the wise and loving\ncounsel of parents and friends. And Ahaz has many modern parallels, sons\nand daughters upon whom every good influence seems spent in vain. They are\nled astray into the ways of the kings of Israel, and make molten images\nfor the Baals. There were several dynasties of the kings of Israel, and\nthe Baals were many and various; there are many tempters who deliberately\nor unconsciously lay snares for souls, and they serve different powers of\nevil. Israel was for the most part more powerful, wealthy, and cultured\nthan Judah. When Ahaz came to the throne as a mere youth, Pekah was\napparently in the prime of life and the zenith of power. He is no inapt\nsymbol of what the modern tempter at any rate desires to appear: the\nshowy, pretentious man of the world, who parades his knowledge of life,\nand impresses the inexperienced youth with his shrewdness and success, and\nmakes his victim eager to imitate him, to walk in the ways of the kings of\nIsrael.\n\nMoreover, the prospect of making molten images for the Baals is an\ninsidious temptation. Ahaz perhaps found the decorous worship of the one\nGod dull and monotonous. Baals meant new gods and new rites, with all the\nexcitement of novelty and variety. Jotham may not have realised that this\nyouth of twenty was a man: the heir-apparent may have been treated as a\nchild and left too much to the women of the harem. Responsible activity\nmight have saved Ahaz. The Church needs to recognise that healthy,\nvigorous youth craves interesting occupation and even excitement. If a\nfather wishes to send his son to the devil, he cannot do better than make\nthat son\u2019s life, both secular and religious, a routine of monotonous\ndrudgery. Then any pinchbeck king of Israel will seem a marvel of wit and\ngood fellowship, and the making of molten images a most pleasing\ndiversion. A molten image is something solid, permanent, and conspicuous,\na standing advertisement of the enterprise and artistic taste of the\nmaker; he engraves his name on the pedestal, and is proud of the\nhonourable distinction. Many of our modern molten images are duly set\nforth in popular works, for instance the reputation for impure life, or\nhard drinking, or reckless gambling, to achieve which some men have spent\ntheir time, and money, and toil. Other molten images are dedicated to\nanother class of Baals: Mammon the respectable and Belial the polite.\n\nThe next step in the history of Ahaz is also typical of many a rake\u2019s\nprogress. The king of Israel, in whose ways he has walked, turns upon him\nand plunders him; the experienced man of the world gives his pupil painful\nproof of his superiority, and calls in his confederates to share the\nspoil. Now surely the victim\u2019s eyes will be opened to the life he is\nleading and the character of his associates. By no means. Ahaz has been\nconquered by Syria, and therefore he will worship the gods of Syria, and\nhe will have a confederate of his own in the Assyrian king. The victim\ntries to master the arts by which he has been robbed and ill-treated; he\nwill become as unscrupulous as his masters in wickedness. He seeks the\nprofit and distinction of being the accomplice of bold and daring sinners,\nmen as pre-eminent in evil as Tilgath-pilneser in Western Asia; and they,\nlike the Assyrian king, take his money and accept his flattery: they use\nhim and then cast him off more humiliated and desperate than ever. He\nsinks into a prey of meaner scoundrels: the Edomites and Philistines of\nfast life; and then, in his extremity, he builds new high places and\nsacrifices to more new gods; he has recourse to all the shifty expedients\nand sordid superstitions of the devotees of luck and chance.\n\nAll this while he has still paid some external homage to religion; he has\nobserved the conventions of honour and good breeding. There have been\nservices, as it were, in the temple of Jehovah. Now he begins to feel that\nthis deference has not met with an adequate reward; he has been no better\ntreated than the flagrantly disreputable: indeed, these men have often got\nthe better of him. \u201cIt is vain to serve God; what profit is there in\nkeeping His charge and in walking mournfully before the Lord of hosts? The\nproud are called happy; they that work wickedness are built up: they tempt\nGod, and are delivered.\u201d His moods vary; and, with reckless inconsistency,\nhe sometimes derides religion as worthless and unmeaning, and sometimes\nseeks to make God responsible for his sins and misfortunes. At one time he\nsays he knows all about religion and has seen through it; he was brought\nup to pious ways, and his mature judgment has shown him that piety is a\ndelusion; he will no longer countenance its hypocrisy and cant: at another\ntime he complains that he has been exposed to special temptations and has\nnot been provided with special safeguards; the road that leads to life has\nbeen made too steep and narrow, and he has been allowed without warning\nand remonstrance to tread \u201cthe primrose path that leads to the everlasting\nbonfire\u201d; he will cast off altogether the dull formalities and irksome\nrestraints of religion; he will work wickedness with a proud heart and a\nhigh hand. His happiness and success have been hindered by pedantic\nscruples; now he will be built up and delivered from his troubles. He gets\nrid of the few surviving relics of the old honourable life. The service of\nprayer and praise ceases; the lamp of truth is put out; the incense of\nholy thought no longer perfumes the soul; and the temple of the Spirit is\nleft empty, and dark, and desolate.\n\nAt last, in what should be the prime of manhood, the sinner,\nbroken-hearted, worn out in mind and body, sinks into a dishonoured grave.\n\nThe career and fate of Ahaz may have other parallels besides this, but it\nis sufficiently clear that the chronicler\u2019s picture of the wicked king is\nno mere antiquarian study of a vanished past. It lends itself with\nstartling facility to illustrate the fatal downward course of any man who,\nentering on the royal inheritance of human life, allies himself with the\npowers of darkness and finally becomes their slave.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII. The Priests.\n\n\nThe Israelite priesthood must be held to include the Levites. Their\nfunctions and status differed from those of the house of Aaron in degree,\nand not in kind. They formed a hereditary caste set apart for the service\nof the sanctuary, and as such they shared the revenues of the Temple with\nthe sons of Aaron. The priestly character of the Levites is more than once\nimplied in Chronicles. After the disruption, we are told that \u201cthe priests\nand the Levites that were in all Israel resorted to Rehoboam,\u201d because\n\u201cJeroboam and his sons cast them off, that they should not exercise the\npriest\u2019s office unto Jehovah.\u201d On an emergency, as at Hezekiah\u2019s great\nfeast at the reopening of the Temple, the Levites might even discharge\npriestly functions. Moreover, the chronicler seems to recognise the\npriestly character of the whole tribe of Levi by retaining in a similar\nconnection the old phrase \u201cthe priests the Levites.\u201d(263)\n\nThe relation of the Levites to the priests, the sons of Aaron, was not\nthat of laymen to clergy, but of an inferior clerical order to their\nsuperiors. When Charlotte Bront\u00eb has occasion to devote a chapter to\ncurates, she heads it \u201cLevitical.\u201d The Levites, again, like deacons in the\nChurch of England, were forbidden to perform the most sacred ritual of\nDivine service. Technically their relation to the sons of Aaron might be\ncompared to that of deacons to priests or of priests to bishops. From the\npoint of view of numbers,(264) revenues, and social standing, the sons of\nAaron might be compared to the dignitaries of the Church: archbishops,\nbishops, archdeacons, deans, and incumbents of livings with large incomes\nand little work; while the Levites would correspond to the more moderately\npaid and fully occupied clergy. Thus the nature of the distinction between\nthe priests and the Levites shows that they were essentially only two\ngrades of the same order; and this corresponds roughly to what has been\ngenerally denoted by the term \u201cpriesthood.\u201d Priest-hood, however, had a\nmore limited meaning in Israel than in later times. In some branches of\nthe Christian Church, the priests exercise or claim to exercise functions\nwhich in Israel belonged to the prophets or the king.\n\nBefore considering the central and essential idea of the priest as a\nminister of public worship, we will notice some of his minor duties. We\nhave seen that the sanctity of civil government is emphasised by the\nreligious supremacy of the king; the same truth is also illustrated by the\nfact that the priests and Levites were sometimes the king\u2019s officers for\ncivil affairs. Under David, certain Levites of Hebron are spoken of as\nhaving the oversight of all Israel, both east and west of Jordan, not only\n\u201cfor all the business of Jehovah,\u201d but also \u201cfor the service of the\nking.\u201d(265) The business of the law-courts was recognised by Jehoshaphat\nas the judgment of Jehovah, and accordingly amongst the judges there were\npriests and Levites.(266) Similarly the medi\u00e6val governments often found\ntheir most efficient and trustworthy administrators in the bishops and\nclergy, and were glad to reinforce their secular authority by the sanction\nof the Church; and even to-day bishops sit in Parliament: incumbents\npreside over vestries, and sometimes act as county magistrates. But the\ninterest of religion in civil government is most manifest in the moral\ninfluence exercised unofficially by earnest and public-spirited ministers\nof all denominations.\n\nThe chronicler refers more than once to the educational work of the\npriests, and especially of the Levites. The English version probably gives\nhis real meaning when it attributes to him the phrase \u201cteaching\npriest.\u201d(267) Jehoshaphat\u2019s educational commission was largely composed of\npriests and Levites, and Levites are spoken of as scribes. Jewish\neducation was largely religious, and naturally fell into the hands of the\npriesthood, just as the learning of Egypt and Babylon was chiefly in the\nhands of priests and magi. The Christian ministry maintained the ancient\ntraditions: the monasteries were the homes of medi\u00e6val learning, and till\nrecently England and Scotland mainly owed their schools to the Churches,\nand almost all schoolmasters of any position were in holy orders\u2014priests\nand Levites. Under our new educational system the free choice of the\npeople places many ministers of religion on the school boards.\n\nThe next characteristic of the priesthood is not so much in accordance\nwith Christian theory and practice. The house of Aaron and the tribe of\nLevi were a Church militant in a very literal sense. In the beginning of\ntheir history the tribe of Levi earned the blessing of Jehovah by the\npious zeal with which they flew to arms in His cause and executed His\njudgment upon their guilty fellow-countrymen.(268) Later on, when \u201cIsrael\njoined himself unto Baal-peor, and the anger of Jehovah was kindled\nagainst Israel,\u201d(269) then stood up Phinehas, \u201cthe ancestor of the house\nof Zadok,\u201d and executed judgment.\n\n\n    \u201cAnd so the plague was stayed,\n    And that was counted unto him for righteousness\n    Unto all generations for evermore.\u201d(270)\n\n\nBut the militant character of the priesthood was not confined to its early\nhistory. Amongst those who \u201ccame armed for war to David to Hebron to turn\nthe kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of Jehovah,\u201d were four\nthousand six hundred of the children of Levi and three thousand seven\nhundred of the house of Aaron, \u201cand Zadok, a young man mighty of valour,\nand twenty-two captains of his father\u2019s house.\u201d(271) \u201cThe third captain of\nDavid\u2019s army for the third month was Benaiah the son of Jehoiada the\npriest.\u201d(272)\n\nDavid\u2019s Hebronite overseers were all \u201cmighty men of valour.\u201d When Judah\nwent out to war, the trumpets of the priests gave the signal for\nbattle(273); when the high-priest Jehoiada recovered the kingdom for\nJoash, the Levites compassed the king round about, every man with his\nweapons in his hand(274); when Nehemiah rebuilt the wall of Jerusalem,\n\u201cevery one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other\nheld his weapon,\u201d(275) and amongst the rest the priests. Later on, when\nJehovah delivered Israel from the hand of Antiochus Epiphanes, the\npriestly family of the Maccabees, in the spirit of their ancestor\nPhinehas, fought and died for the Law and the Temple. There were priestly\nsoldiers as well as priestly generals, for we read how \u201cat that time\ncertain priests, desirous to show their valour, were slain in battle, for\nthat they went out to fight inadvisedly.\u201d(276) In the Jewish war the\npriest Josephus was Jewish commander in Galilee.\n\nChristianity has aroused a new sentiment with regard to war. We believe\nthat the servant of the Lord must not strive in earthly battles. Arms may\nbe lawful for the Christian citizen, but it is felt to be unseemly that\nthe ministers who are the ambassadors of the Prince of Peace should\nthemselves be men of blood. Even in the Middle Ages fighting prelates like\nOdo, Bishop of Bayeux, were felt to be exceptional anomalies; and the\nprince-bishops and electoral archbishops were often ecclesiastics only in\nname. To-day the Catholic Church in France resents the conscription of its\nseminarists as an act of vindictive persecution.\n\nAnd yet the growth of Christian sentiment in favour of peace has not\nprevented the occasional combination of the soldier and the ecclesiastic.\nIf Islam has had its armies of dervishes, Cyril\u2019s monks fought for\northodoxy at Alexandria and at Constantinople with all the ferocity of\nwild beasts. The Crusaders, the Templars, the Knights of St. John, were in\nvarying degrees partly priests and partly soldiers. Cromwell\u2019s Ironsides,\nwhen they were wielding carnal weapons in their own defence or in any\nother good cause, were as expert as any Levites at exhortations and psalms\nand prayers; and in our own day certain generals and admirals are fond of\nplaying the amateur ecclesiastic. In this, as in so much else, while we\ndeny the form of Judaism, we retain its spirit. Havelock and Gordon were\nno unworthy successors of the Maccabees.\n\nThe characteristic function, however, of the Jewish priesthood was their\nministry in public worship, in which they represented the people before\nJehovah. In this connection public worship does not necessarily imply that\nthe public were present, or that the worship in question was the united\nact of a great assembly. Such worshipping assemblies were not uncommon,\nespecially at the feasts; but ordinary public worship was worship on\nbehalf of the people, not by the people. The priests and Levites were part\nof an elaborate system of symbolic ritual. Worshippers might gather in the\nTemple courts, but the Temple itself was not a place in which public\nmeetings for worship were held, and the people were not admitted into it.\nThe Temple was Jehovah\u2019s house, and His presence there was symbolised by\nthe Ark. In this system of ritual the priests and Levites represented\nIsrael; their sacrifices and ministrations were the acceptable offerings\nof the nation to God. If the sacrifices were duly offered by the priests\n\u201caccording to all that was written in the law of Jehovah, and if the\npriests with trumpets and the Levites with psalteries, and harps, and\ncymbals duly ministered before the ark of Jehovah to celebrate, and thank,\nand praise Jehovah, the God of Israel,\u201d then the Divine service of Israel\nwas fully performed. The whole people could not be regularly present at a\nsingle sanctuary, nor would they be adequately represented by the\ninhabitants of Jerusalem and casual visitors from the rest of the country.\nThree times a year the nation was fully and naturally represented by those\nwho came up to the feasts, but usually the priests and Levites stood in\ntheir place.\n\nWhen an assembly gathered for public worship at a feast or any other time,\nthe priests and Levites expressed the devotion of the people. They\nperformed the sacrificial rites, they blew the trumpets and played upon\nthe psalteries, and harps, and cymbals, and sang the praises of Jehovah.\nThe people were dismissed by the priestly blessing. When an individual\noffered a sacrifice as an act of private worship, the assistance of the\npriests and Levites was still necessary. At the same time the king as well\nas the priesthood might lead the people in praise and prayer, and the\nTemple psalmody was not confined to the Levitical choir. When the Ark was\nbrought away from Kirjath-jearim, \u201cDavid and all Israel played before God\nwith all their might, even with songs, and with harps, and with\npsalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets\u201d; and\nwhen at last the Ark had been safely housed in Jerusalem, and the due\nsacrifices had all been offered, David dismissed the people in priestly\nfashion by blessing them in the name of Jehovah.(277) At the two solemn\nassemblies which celebrated the beginning and the close of the great\nenterprise of building the Temple, public prayer was offered, not by the\npriests, but by David(278) and Solomon.(279) Similarly Jehoshaphat led the\nprayers of the Jews when they gathered to seek deliverance from the\ninvading Moabites and Ammonites. Hezekiah at his great passover both\nexhorted the people and interceded for them, and Jehovah accepted his\nintercession; but on this occasion, when the festival was over, it was not\nthe king, but \u201cthe priests the Levites,\u201d(280) who \u201carose and blessed the\npeople: and their voice was heard, and their prayer came up to His holy\nhabitation, even unto heaven.\u201d In the descriptions of Hezekiah\u2019s and\nJosiah\u2019s festivals, the orchestra and choir, of course, are busy with the\nmusic and singing; otherwise the main duty of the priests and Levites is\nto sacrifice. In his graphic account of Josiah\u2019s passover, the chronicler\nno doubt reproduces on a larger scale the busy scenes in which he himself\nhad often taken part. The king, the princes, and the chiefs of the Levites\nhad provided between them thirty-seven thousand six hundred lambs and kids\nand three thousand eight hundred oxen for sacrifices; and the resources of\nthe establishment of the Temple were taxed to the utmost. \u201cSo the service\nwas prepared, and the priests stood in their place, and the Levites by the\ncourses, according to the king\u2019s commandment. And they killed the\npassover, and the priests sprinkled the blood, which they received of\ntheir hand, and the Levites flayed the sacrifices. And they removed the\nburnt offerings, that they might give them according to the divisions of\nthe fathers\u2019 houses of the children of the people, to offer unto Jehovah,\nas it is written in the law of Moses; and so they did with the oxen. And\nthey roasted the passover according to the ordinance; and they boiled the\nholy offerings in pots, and caldrons, and pans, and carried them quickly\nto all the children of the people. And afterward they prepared for\nthemselves and for the priests, because the priests the sons of Aaron were\nbusied in offering the burnt offerings and the fat until night; therefore\nthe Levites prepared for themselves and for the priests the sons of Aaron.\nAnd the singers were in their place, and the porters were at their several\ngates; they needed not to depart from their service, for their brethren\nthe Levites prepared for them. So all the service of Jehovah was prepared\nthe same day, to keep the passover, and to offer burnt offerings upon the\naltar of Jehovah.\u201d(281) Thus even in the accounts of great public\ngatherings for worship the main duty of the priests and Levites is to\nperform the sacrifices. The music and singing naturally fall into their\nhands, because the necessary training is only possible to a professional\nchoir. Otherwise the now symbolic portions of the service, prayer,\nexhortation, and blessing, were not exclusively reserved to ecclesiastics.\n\nThe priesthood, like the Ark, the Temple, and the ritual, belonged\nessentially to the system of religious symbolism. This was their peculiar\ndomain, into which no outsider might intrude. Only the Levites could touch\nthe Ark. When the unhappy Uzzah \u201cput forth his hand to the Ark,\u201d \u201cthe\nanger of Jehovah was kindled against him; and he smote Uzzah so that he\ndied there before God.\u201d(282) The king might offer up public prayer; but\nwhen Uzziah ventured to go into the Temple to burn incense upon the altar\nof incense, leprosy broke forth in his forehead, and the priests thrust\nhim out quickly from the Temple.(283)\n\nThus the symbolic and representative character of the priesthood and\nritual gave the sacrifices and other ceremonies a value in themselves,\napart alike from the presence of worshippers and the feelings or\n\u201cintention\u201d of the officiating minister. They were the provision made by\nIsrael for the expression of its prayer, its penitence and thanksgiving.\nWhen sin had estranged Jehovah from His people, the sons of Aaron made\natonement for Israel; they performed the Divinely appointed ritual by\nwhich the nation made submission to its offended King and cast itself upon\nHis mercy. The Jewish sacrifices had features which have survived in the\nsacrifice of the Mass, and the multiplication of sacrifices arose from\nmotives similar to those that lead to the offering up of many masses.\n\nOne would expect, as has happened in the Christian Church, that the\nministrants of the symbolic ritual would annex the other acts of public\nworship, not only praise, but also prayer and exhortation. Considerations\nof convenience would suggest such an amalgamation of functions; and among\nthe priests, while the more ambitious would see in preaching a means of\nextending their authority, the more earnest would be anxious to use their\nunique position to promote the spiritual life of the people. Chronicles,\nhowever, affords few traces of any such tendency; and the great scene in\nthe book of Nehemiah in which Ezra and the Levites expound the Law had no\nconnection with the Temple and its ritual. The development of the Temple\nservice was checked by its exclusive privileges; it was simply impossible\nthat the single sanctuary should continue to provide for all the religious\nwants of the Jews, and thus supplementary and inferior places of worship\ngrew up to appropriate the non-ritual elements of service. Probably even\nin the chronicler\u2019s time the division of religious services between the\nTemple and the synagogue had already begun, with the result that the\nrepresentative and symbolic character of the priesthood is almost\nexclusively emphasised.\n\nThe representative character of the priesthood has another aspect.\nStrictly the priest represented the nation before Jehovah; but in doing so\nit was inevitable that he should also in some measure represent Jehovah to\nthe nation. He could not be the channel of worship offered to God without\nbeing also the channel of Divine grace to man. From the priest the\nworshipper learnt the will of God as to correct ritual, and received the\nassurance that the atoning sacrifice was duly accepted. The high-priest\nentered within the veil to make atonement for Israel; he came forth as the\nbearer of Divine forgiveness and renewed grace, and as he blessed the\npeople he spoke in the name of Jehovah. We have been able to discern the\npresence of these ideas in Chronicles, but they are not very conspicuous.\nThe chronicler was not a layman; he was too familiar with priests to feel\nany profound reverence for them. On the other hand, he was not himself a\npriest, but was specially preoccupied with the musicians, the Levites, and\nthe doorkeepers; so that probably he does not give us an adequate idea of\nthe relative dignity of the priests and the honour in which they were held\nby the people. Organists and choirmasters, it is said, seldom take an\nexalted view of their minister\u2019s office.\n\nThe chronicler deals more fully with a matter in which priests and Levites\nwere alike interested: the revenues of the Temple. He was doubtless aware\nof the bountiful provision made by the Law for his order, and loved to\nhold up this liberality of kings, princes, and people in ancient days for\nhis contemporaries to admire and imitate. He records again and again the\ntens of thousands of sheep and oxen provided for sacrifice, not altogether\nunmindful of the rich dues that must have accrued to the priests out of\nall this abundance; he tells us how Hezekiah first set the good example of\nappointing \u201ca portion of his substance for the burnt offerings,\u201d and then\n\u201ccommanded the people that dwelt at Jerusalem to give the portion of the\npriests and the Levites that they might give themselves to the law of the\nLord. And as soon as the commandment came abroad the children of Israel\ngave in abundance the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil, and honey, and\nof all the increase of the field; and the tithe of all things brought they\nin abundantly.\u201d(284) These were the days of old, the ancient years when\nthe offering of Judah and Jerusalem was pleasant to Jehovah; when the\npeople neither dared nor desired to offer on God\u2019s altar a scanty tale of\nblind, lame, and sick victims; when the tithes were not kept back, and\nthere was meat in the house of God(285); when, as Hezekiah\u2019s high-priest\ntestified, they could eat and have enough and yet leave plenty.(286) The\nmanner in which the chronicler tells the tale of ancient abundance\nsuggests that his days were like the days of Malachi. He was no pampered\necclesiastic, revelling in present wealth and luxury, but a man who\nsuffered hard times, and looked back wistfully to the happier experiences\nof his predecessors.\n\nLet us now restore the complete picture of the chronicler\u2019s priest from\nhis scattered references to the subject. The priest represents the nation\nbefore Jehovah, and in a less degree represents Jehovah to the nation; he\nleads their public worship, especially at the great festal gatherings; he\nteaches the people the Law. The high character, culture, and ability of\nthe priests and Levites occasions their employment as judges and in other\nresponsible civil offices. If occasion required, they could show\nthemselves mighty men of valour in their country\u2019s wars. Under pious\nkings, they enjoyed ample revenues which gave them independence, added to\ntheir importance in the eyes of the people, and left them at leisure to\ndevote themselves exclusively to their sacred duties.\n\nIn considering the significance of this picture, we can pass over without\nspecial notice the exercise by priests and Levites of the functions of\nleadership in public worship, teaching, and civil government. They are not\nessential to the priesthood, but are entirely consistent with the tenure\nof the priestly office, and naturally become associated with it. Warlike\nprowess was certainly no part of the priesthood; but, whatever may be true\nof Christian ministers, it is difficult to charge the priests of the Lord\nof hosts with inconsistency because, like Jehovah Himself, they were men\nof war(287) and went forth to battle in the armies of Israel. When a\nnation was continually fighting for its very existence, it was impossible\nfor one tribe out of the twelve to be non-combatant.\n\nWith regard to the representative character of the priests, it would be\nout of place here to enter upon the burning questions of sacerdotalism;\nbut we may briefly point out the permanent truth underlying the ancient\nidea of the priesthood. The ideal spiritual life in every Church is one of\ndirect fellowship between God and the believer.\n\n\n    \u201cSpeak to Him, thou, for He hears, and spirit with spirit can\n                meet;\n    Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.\u201d\n\n\nAnd yet a man may be truly religious and not realise this ideal, or only\nrealise it very imperfectly. The gift of an intense and real spiritual\nlife may belong to the humblest and poorest, to men of little intellect\nand less learning; but, none the less, it is not within the immediate\nreach of every believer, or indeed of any believer at every time. The\ndescendants of Mr. Little-faith and Mr. Ready-to-halt are amongst us\nstill, and there is no immediate prospect of their race becoming extinct.\nTimes come when we are all glad to put ourselves under the safe conduct of\nMr. Great-heart. There are many whose prayers seem to themselves too\nfeebly winged to rise to the throne of grace; they are encouraged and\nhelped when their petitions are borne upwards on the strong pinions of\nanother\u2019s faith. George Eliot has pictured the Florentines as awed\nspectators of Savonarola\u2019s audiences with Heaven. To a congregation\nsometimes the minister\u2019s prayers are a sacred and solemn spectacle; his\nspiritual feeling is beyond them; he intercedes for blessings they neither\ndesire nor understand; they miss the heavenly vision which stirs his soul.\nHe is not their spokesman, but their priest; he has entered the holy\nplace, bearing with him the sins that crave forgiveness, the fears that\nbeg for deliverance, the hopes that yearn to be fulfilled. Though the\npeople may remain in the outer court, yet they are fully assured that he\nhas passed into the very presence of God. They listen to him as to one who\nhas had actual speech with the King and received the assurance of His\ngoodwill towards them. When the vanguard of the Ten Thousand first sighted\nthe Euxine, the cry of \u201cThalassa! Thalassa!\u201d (\u201cThe sea! the sea!\u201d) rolled\nbackward along the line of march; the rearguard saw the long-hoped-for\nsight with the eyes of the pioneers. Much unnecessary self-reproach would\nbe avoided if we accepted this as one of God\u2019s methods of spiritual\neducation, and understood that we all have in a measure to experience this\ndiscipline in humility. The priesthood of the believer is not merely his\nright to enter for himself into the immediate presence of God: it becomes\nhis duty and privilege to represent others. But times will also come when\nhe himself will need the support of a priestly intercession in the Divine\npresence-chamber, when he will seek out some one of quick sympathy and\nstrong faith and say, \u201cBrother, pray for me.\u201d Apart from any\necclesiastical theory of the priesthood, we all recognise that there are\nGod-ordained priests, men and women, who can inspire dull souls with a\nsense of the Divine presence and bring to the sinful and the struggling\nthe assurance of Divine forgiveness and help. If one in ten among the\nofficial priests of the historic Churches had possessed these supreme\ngifts, the world would have accepted the most extravagant sacerdotalism\nwithout a murmur. As it is, every minister, every one who leads the\nworship of a congregation, assumes for the time being functions and should\npossess the corresponding qualifications. In his prayers he speaks for the\npeople; he represents them before God; on their behalf he enters into the\nDivine presence; they only enter with him, if, as their spokesman and\nrepresentative, he has grasped their feelings and raised them to the level\nof Divine fellowship. He may be an untutored labourer in his working\ngarments; but if he can do this, this spiritual gift makes him a priest of\nGod. But this Christian priesthood is not confined to public service; as\nthe priest offered sacrifice for the individual Jew, so the man of\nspiritual sympathies helps the individual to draw near his Maker. \u201cTo pray\nwith people\u201d is a well-known ministry of Christian service, and it\ninvolves this priestly function of presenting another\u2019s prayers to God.\nThis priesthood for individuals is exercised by many a Christian who has\nno gifts of public utterance.\n\nThe ancient priest held a representative position in a symbolic ritual, a\nposition partly independent of his character and spiritual powers. Where\nsymbolic ritual is best suited for popular needs, there may be room for a\nsimilar priesthood to-day. Otherwise the Christian priesthood is required\nto represent the people not in symbol, but in reality, to carry not the\nblood of dead victims into a material Holy of holies, but living souls\ninto the heavenly temple.\n\nThere remains one feature of the Jewish priestly system upon which the\nchronicler lays great stress: the endowments and priestly dues. In the\ncase of the high-priest and the Levites, whose whole time was devoted to\nsacred duties, it was obviously necessary that those who served the altar\nshould live by the altar. The same principle would apply, but with much\nless force, to the twenty-four courses of priests, each of which in its\nturn officiated at the Temple. But, apart from the needs of the\npriesthood, their representative character demanded that they should be\nable to maintain a certain state. They were the ambassadors of Israel to\nJehovah. Nations have always been anxious that the equipment and suite of\ntheir representative at a foreign court should be worthy of their power\nand wealth; moreover, the splendour of an embassy should be in proportion\nto the rank of the sovereign to whom it is accredited. In former times,\nwhen the social symbols were held of more account, a first-rate power\nwould have felt itself insulted if asked to receive an envoy of inferior\nrank, attended by only a meagre train. Israel, by her lavish endowment of\nthe priesthood, consulted her own dignity and expressed her sense of the\nhomage due to Jehovah. The Jews could not express their devotion in the\nsame way as other nations. They had to be content with a single sanctuary,\nand might not build a multitude of magnificent temples or adorn their\ncities with splendid, costly statues in honour of God. There were limits\nto their expenditure upon the sacrifices and buildings of the Temple; but\nthe priesthood offered a large opportunity for pious generosity. The\nchronicler felt that loyal enthusiasm to Jehovah would always use this\nopportunity, and that the priests might consent to accept the distinction\nof wealth and splendour for the honour alike of Israel and Jehovah. Their\ndignity was not personal to themselves, but rather the livery of a\nself-effacing servitude. For the honour of the Church, Thomas \u00e0 Becket\nkept up a great establishment, appeared in his robes of office, and\nentertained a crowd of guests with luxurious fare; while he himself wore a\nhair shirt next his skin and fasted like an ascetic monk. When the Jews\nstinted the ritual or the ministrants of Jehovah, they were doing what\nthey could to put Him to open shame before the nations. Julian\u2019s\nexperience in the grove of Daphne at Antioch was a striking illustration\nof the collapse of paganism: the imperial champion of the ancient gods\nmust have felt his heart sink within him when he was welcomed to that once\nsplendid sanctuary by one shabby priest dragging a solitary and reluctant\ngoose to the deserted altar. Similarly Malachi saw that Israel\u2019s devotion\nto Jehovah was in danger of dying out when men chose the refuse of their\nflocks and herds and offered them grudgingly at the shrine.\n\nThe application of these principles leads directly to the question of a\npaid ministry; but the connection is not so close as it appears at first\nsight, nor are we yet in possession of all the data which the chronicler\nfurnishes for its discussion. Priestly duties form an essential, but not\npredominant, part of the work of most Christian ministers. Still the loyal\nbeliever must always be anxious that the buildings, the services, and the\nmen which, for himself and for the world, represent his devotion to\nChrist, should be worthy of their high calling. But his ideas of the\nsymbolism suitable for spiritual realities are not altogether those of the\nchronicler: he is less concerned with number, size, and weight, with tens\nof thousands of sheep and oxen, vast quantities of stone and timber, brass\nand iron, and innumerable talents of gold and silver. Moreover, in this\nspecial connection the secondary priestly function of representing God to\nman has been expressly transferred by Christ to the least of His brethren.\nThose who wish to honour God with their substance in the person of His\nearthly representatives are enjoined to seek for them in hospitals, and\nworkhouses, and prisons, to find these representatives in the hungry, the\nthirsty, the friendless, the naked, the captives. No doubt Christ is\ndishonoured when those who dwell in \u201chouses of cedar\u201d are content to\nworship Him in a mean, dirty church, with a half-starved minister; but the\nmost disgraceful proof of the Church\u2019s disloyalty to Christ is to be seen\nin the squalor and misery of men, and women, and children whose bodies\nwere ordained of God to be the temples of His Holy Spirit.\n\nThis is only one among many illustrations of the truth that in Christ the\nsymbolism of religion took a new departure. His Church enjoys the\nspiritual realities prefigured by the Jewish temple and its ministry. Even\nwhere Christian symbols are parallel to those of Judaism, they are less\nconventional and richer in their direct spiritual suggestiveness.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IX. The Prophets.\n\n\nOne remarkable feature of Chronicles as compared with the book of Kings is\nthe greater interest shown by the former in the prophets of Judah. The\nchronicler, by confining his attention to the southern kingdom, was\ncompelled to omit almost all reference to Elijah and Elisha, and thus\nexclude from his work some of the most thrilling chapters in the history\nof the prophets of Israel. Nevertheless the prophets as a whole play\nalmost as important a part in Chronicles as in the book of Kings.\nCompensation is made for the omission of the two great northern prophets\nby inserting accounts of several prophets whose messages were addressed to\nthe kings of Judah.\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s interest in the prophets was very different from the\ninterest he took in the priests and Levites. The latter belonged to the\ninstitutions of his own time, and formed his own immediate circle. In\ndealing with their past, he was reconstructing the history of his own\norder; he was able to illustrate and supplement from observation and\nexperience the information afforded by his sources.\n\nBut when the chronicler wrote, prophets had ceased to be a living\ninstitution in Judah. The light that had shone so brightly in Isaiah and\nJeremiah burned feebly in Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and then went\nout. Not long after the chronicler\u2019s time the failure of prophecy is\nexpressly recognised. The people whose synagogues have been burnt up\ncomplain,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cWe see not our signs;\n    There is no more any prophet.\u201d(288)\n\n\nWhen Judas Maccab\u00e6us appointed certain priests to cleanse the Temple after\nits pollution by the Syrians, they pulled down the altar of burnt\nofferings because the heathen had defiled it, and laid up the stones in\nthe mountain of the Temple in a convenient place, until there should come\na prophet to show what should be done with them.(289) This failure of\nprophecy was not merely brief and transient. It marked the disappearance\nof the ancient order of prophets. A parallel case shows how the Jews had\nbecome aware that the high-priest no longer possessed the special gifts\nconnected with the Urim and Thummim. When certain priests could not find\ntheir genealogies, they were forbidden \u201cto eat of the most holy things\ntill there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.\u201d(290) We have no\nrecord of any subsequent appearance of \u201ca priest with Urim and with\nThummim\u201d or of any prophet of the old order.\n\nThus the chronicler had never seen a prophet; his conception of the\npersonality and office of the prophet was entirely based upon ancient\nliterature, and he took no professional interest in the order. At the same\ntime he had no prejudice against them; they had no living successors to\ncompete for influence and endowments with the priests and Levites.\nPossibly the Levites, as the chief religious teachers of the people,\nclaimed some sort of apostolic succession from the prophets; but there are\nvery slight grounds for any such theory. The chronicler\u2019s information on\nthe whole subject was that of a scholar with a taste for antiquarian\nresearch.\n\nLet us briefly examine the part played by the prophets in the history of\nJudah as given by Chronicles. We have first, as in the book of Kings, the\nreferences to Nathan and Gad: they make known to David the will of Jehovah\nas regards the building of the Temple and the punishment of David\u2019s pride\nin taking the census of Israel. David unhesitatingly accepts their\nmessages as the word of Jehovah. It is important to notice that when\nNathan is consulted about building the Temple he first answers, apparently\ngiving a mere private opinion, \u201cDo all that is in thine heart, for God is\nwith thee\u201d; but when \u201cthe word of God comes\u201d to him, he retracts his\nformer judgment and forbids David to build the Temple. Here again the plan\nof the chronicler\u2019s work leads to an important omission: his silence as to\nthe murder of Uriah prevents him from giving the beautiful and instructive\naccount of the way in which Nathan rebuked the guilty king. Later\nnarratives exhibit other prophets in the act of rebuking most of the kings\nof Judah, but none of these incidents are equally striking and pathetic.\nAt the end of the histories of David and of most of the later kings we\nfind notes which apparently indicate that, in the chronicler\u2019s time, the\nprophets were credited with having written the annals of the kings with\nwhom they were contemporary. In connection with Hezekiah\u2019s reformation we\nare incidentally told that Nathan and Gad were associated with David in\nmaking arrangements for the music of the Temple: \u201cHe set the Levites in\nthe house of Jehovah, with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps,\naccording to the commandment of David and of Gad the king\u2019s seer and\nNathan the prophet, for the commandment was of Jehovah by His\nprophets.\u201d(291)\n\nIn the account of Solomon\u2019s reign, the chronicler omits the interview of\nAhijah the Shilonite with Jeroboam, but refers to it in the history of\nRehoboam. From this point, in accordance with his general plan, he omits\nalmost all missions of prophets to the northern kings.\n\nIn Rehoboam\u2019s reign, we have recorded, as in the book of Kings, a message\nfrom Jehovah by Shemaiah forbidding the king and his two tribes of Judah\nand Benjamin to attempt to compel the northern tribes to return to their\nallegiance to the house of David. Later on, when Shishak invaded Judah,\nShemaiah was commissioned to deliver to the king and princes the message,\n\u201cThus saith Jehovah: Ye have forsaken Me; therefore have I also left you\nin the hand of Shishak.\u201d(292) But when they repented and humbled\nthemselves before Jehovah, Shemaiah announced to them the mitigation of\ntheir punishment.\n\nAsa\u2019s reformation was due to the inspired exhortations of a prophet called\nboth Oded and Azariah the son of Oded. Later on Hanani the seer rebuked\nthe king for his alliance with Benhadad, king of Syria. \u201cThen Asa was\nwroth with the seer, and put him in the prison-house; for he was in a rage\nwith him because of this thing.\u201d(293)\n\nJehoshaphat\u2019s alliance with Ahab and his consequent visit to Samaria\nenabled the chronicler to introduce from the book of Kings the striking\nnarrative of Micaiah the son of Imlah; but this alliance with Israel\nearned for the king the rebukes of Jehu the son of Hanani the seer and\nEliezar the son of Dodavahu of Mareshah. However, on the occasion of the\nMoabite and Ammonite invasion Jehoshaphat and his people received the\npromise of Divine deliverance from \u201cJahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son\nof Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah the Levite, of the sons\nof Asaph.\u201d(294)\n\nThe punishment of the wicked king Jehoram was announced to him by a\n\u201cwriting from Elijah the prophet.\u201d(295) His son Ahaziah apparently\nperished without any prophetic warning; but when Joash and his princes\nforsook the house of Jehovah and served the Asherim and the idols, \u201cHe\nsent prophets to them to bring them again to Jehovah,\u201d among the rest\nZechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest. Joash turned a deaf ear to the\nmessage, and put the prophet to death.(296)\n\nWhen Amaziah bowed down before the gods of Edom and burned incense unto\nthem, Jehovah sent unto him a prophet whose name is not recorded. His\nmission failed, like that of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada; and Amaziah,\nlike Joash, showed no respect for the person of the messenger of Jehovah.\nIn this case the prophet escaped with his life. He began to deliver his\nmessage, but the king\u2019s patience soon failed, and he said unto the\nprophet, \u201cHave we made thee of the king\u2019s counsel? forbear; why shouldest\nthou be smitten?\u201d The prophet, we are told, \u201cforbare\u201d; but his forbearance\ndid not prevent his adding one brief and bitter sentence: \u201cI know that God\nhath determined to destroy thee, because thou hast done this and hast not\nhearkened unto my counsel.\u201d(297) Then apparently he departed in peace and\nwas not smitten.\n\nWe have now reached the period of the prophets whose writings are extant.\nWe learn from the headings of their works that Isaiah saw his \u201cvision,\u201d\nand that the word of Jehovah came unto Hosea, in the days of Uzziah,\nJotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; that the word of Jehovah came to Micah in the\ndays of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; and that Amos \u201csaw\u201d his \u201cwords\u201d in the\ndays of Uzziah. But the chronicler makes no reference to any of these\nprophets in connection with either Uzziah, Jotham, or Ahaz. Their writings\nwould have afforded the best possible materials for his history, yet he\nentirely neglected them. In view of his anxiety to introduce into his\nnarrative all missions of prophets of which he found any record, we can\nonly suppose that he was so little interested in the prophetical writings\nthat he neither referred to them nor recollected their dates.\n\nTo Ahaz in Chronicles, in spite of all his manifold and persistent\nidolatry, no prophet was sent. The absence of Divine warning marks his\nextraordinary wickedness. In the book of Samuel the culmination of\nJehovah\u2019s displeasure against Saul is shown by His refusal to answer him\neither by dreams, by Urim, or by prophets. He sends no prophet to Ahaz,\nbecause the wicked king of Judah is utterly reprobate. Prophecy, the token\nof the Divine presence and favour, has abandoned a nation given over to\nidolatry, and has even taken a temporary refuge in Samaria. Jerusalem was\nno longer worthy to receive the Divine messages, and Oded was sent with\nhis words of warning and humane exhortation to the children of Ephraim.\nThere he met with a prompt and full obedience, in striking contrast to the\nreception accorded by Joash and Amaziah to the prophets of Jehovah.\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s history of the reign of Hezekiah further illustrates his\nindifference to the prophets whose writings are extant. In the book of\nKings great prominence is given to Isaiah. In the account of Sennacherib\u2019s\ninvasion his messages to Hezekiah are given at considerable length.(298)\nHe announces to the king his approaching death and Jehovah\u2019s gracious\nanswers to Hezekiah\u2019s prayer for a respite and his request for a sign.\nWhen Hezekiah, in his pride of wealth, displayed his treasures to the\nBabylonian ambassadors, Isaiah brought the message of Divine rebuke and\njudgment. Chronicles characteristically devotes three long chapters to\nritual and Levites, and dismisses Isaiah in half a sentence: \u201cAnd Hezekiah\nthe king and Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, prayed because of\nthis\u201d\u2014_i.e._, the threatening language of Sennacherib\u2014\u201cand cried to\nHeaven.\u201d(299) In the accounts of Hezekiah\u2019s sickness and recovery and of\nthe Babylonian embassy the references to Isaiah are entirely omitted.\nThese omissions may be due to lack of space, so much of which had been\ndevoted to the Levites that there was none to spare for the prophet.\n\nIndeed, at the very point where prophecy began to exercise a controlling\ninfluence over the religion of Judah the chronicler\u2019s interest in the\nsubject altogether flags. He tells us that Jehovah spake to Manasseh and\nto his people, and refers to \u201cthe words of the seers that spake to him in\nthe name of Jehovah, the God of Israel\u201d;(300) but he names no prophet and\ndoes not record the terms of any Divine message. In the case of Manasseh\nhis sources may have failed him, but we have seen that in Hezekiah\u2019s reign\nhe deliberately passes over most of the references to Isaiah.\n\nThe chroniclers narrative of Josiah\u2019s reign adheres more closely to the\nbook of Kings. He reproduces the mission from the king to the prophetess\nHuldah and her Divine message of present forbearance and future judgment.\nThe other prophet of this reign is the heathen king Pharaoh Necho, through\nwhose mouth the Divine warning is given to Josiah. Jeremiah is only\nmentioned as lamenting over the last good king.(301) In the parallel text\nof this passage in the apocryphal book of Esdras Pharaoh\u2019s remonstrance is\ngiven in a somewhat expanded form; but the editor of Esdras shrank from\nmaking the heathen king the mouthpiece of Jehovah. While Chronicles tells\nus that Josiah \u201chearkened not unto the words of Neco from the mouth of\nGod,\u201d Esdras, glaringly inconsistent both with the context and the\nhistory, tells us that he did not regard \u201cthe words of the prophet\nJeremiah spoken by the mouth of the Lord.\u201d(302) This amended statement is\nborrowed from the chronicler\u2019s account of Zedekiah, who \u201chumbled not\nhimself before Jeremiah the prophet, speaking from the mouth of Jehovah.\u201d\nBut this king was not alone in his disobedience. As the inevitable ruin of\nJerusalem drew near, the whole nation, priests and people alike, sank\ndeeper and deeper in sin. In these last days, \u201cwhere sin abounded, grace\ndid yet more abound.\u201d Jehovah exhausted the resources of His mercy:\n\u201cJehovah, the God of their fathers, sent to them by His messengers, rising\nup early and sending, because He had compassion on His people and on His\ndwelling-place.\u201d It was all in vain: \u201cThey mocked the messengers of God,\nand despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of\nJehovah arose against His people, till there was no remedy.\u201d There are two\nother references in the concluding paragraphs of Chronicles to the\nprophecies of Jeremiah; but the history of prophecy in Judah closes with\nthis last great unavailing manifestation of prophetic activity.\n\nBefore considering the general idea of the prophet that may be collected\nfrom the various notices in Chronicles, we may devote a little space to\nthe chronicler\u2019s curious attitude towards our canonical prophets. For the\nmost part he simply follows the book of Kings in making no reference to\nthem; but his almost entire silence as to Isaiah suggests that his\nimitation of his authority in other cases is deliberate and intentional,\nespecially as we find him inserting one or two references to Jeremiah not\ntaken from the book of Kings. The chronicler had much more opportunity of\nusing the canonical prophets than the author or authors of the book of\nKings. The latter wrote before Hebrew literature had been collected and\nedited; but the chronicler had access to all the literature of the\nmonarchy, Captivity, and even later times. His numerous extracts from\nalmost the entire range of the Historical Books, together with the\nPentateuch and Psalms, show that his plan included the use of various\nsources, and that he had both the means and ability to work out his plan.\nHe makes two references to Haggai and Zechariah,(303) so that if he\nignores Amos, Hosea, and Micah, and all but ignores Isaiah, we can only\nconclude that he does so of set purpose. Hosea and Amos might be excluded\non account of their connection with the northern kingdom; possibly the\nstrictures of Isaiah and Micah on the priesthood and ritual made the\nchronicler unwilling to give them special prominence. Such an attitude on\nthe part of a typical representative of the prevailing school of religious\nthought has an important bearing on the textual and other criticism of the\nearly prophets. If they were neglected by the authorities of the Temple in\nthe interval between Ezra and the Maccabees, the possibility of late\nadditions and alterations is considerably increased.\n\nLet us now turn to the picture of the prophets drawn for us by the\nchronicler. Both prophet and priest are religious personages, otherwise\nthey differ widely in almost every particular; we cannot even speak of\nthem as both holding religious offices. The term \u201coffice\u201d has to be almost\nunjustifiably strained in order to apply it to the prophet, and to use it\nthus without explanation would be misleading. The qualifications, status,\nduties, and rewards of the priests are all fully prescribed by rigid and\nelaborate rules; but the prophets were the children of the Spirit: \u201cThe\nwind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but\nknowest not whence it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every one that is\nborn of the Spirit.\u201d The priest was bound to be a physically perfect male\nof the house of Aaron; the prophet might be of any tribe and of either\nsex. The warlike Deborah found a more peaceful successor in Josiah\u2019s\ncounsellor Huldah, and among the degenerate prophets of Nehemiah\u2019s time a\nprophetess Noadiah(304) is specially mentioned. The priestly or Levitical\noffice did not exclude its holder from the prophetic vocation. The Levite\nJahaziel delivered the message of Jehovah to Jehoshaphat; and the prophet\nZechariah, whom Joash put to death, was the son of the high-priest\nJehoiada, and therefore himself a priest. Indeed, upon occasion the\nprophetic gift was exercised by those whom we should scarcely call\nprophets at all. Pharaoh Necho\u2019s warning to Jehoshaphat is exactly\nparallel to the prophetic exhortations addressed to other kings. In the\ncrisis of David\u2019s fortunes at Ziklag, when Judah and Benjamin came out to\nmeet him with apparently doubtful intentions, their adhesion to the future\nking was decided by a prophetic word given to the mighty warrior Amasai:\n\u201cThen the Spirit came upon Amasai, who was one of the thirty, and he said,\nThine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: peace, peace, be\nunto thee, and peace be to thine helpers; for thy God helpeth thee.\u201d(305)\nIn view of this wide distribution of the prophetic gift, we are not\nsurprised to find it frequently exercised by the pious kings. They receive\nand communicate to the nation direct intimations of the Divine will. David\ngives to Solomon and the people the instructions which God has given him\nwith regard to the Temple; God\u2019s promises are personally addressed to\nSolomon, without the intervention of either prophet or priest; Abijah\nrebukes and exhorts Jeroboam and the Israelites very much as other\nprophets address the wicked kings; the speeches of Hezekiah and Josiah\nmight equally well have been delivered by one of the prophets. David\nindeed is expressly called a prophet by St. Peter(306); and though the\nimmediate reference is to the Psalms, the chronicler\u2019s history both of\nDavid and of other kings gives them a valid claim to rank as prophets.\n\nThe authority and status of the prophets rested on no official or material\nconditions, such as hedged in the priestly office on every side.\nAccordingly their ancestry, previous history, and social standing are\nmatters with which the historian has no concern. If the prophet happens\nalso to be a priest or Levite, the chronicler, of course, knows and\nrecords his genealogy. It was essential that the genealogy of a priest\nshould be known, but there are no genealogies of the prophets; their order\nwas like that of Melchizedek, standing on the page of history \u201cwithout\nfather, without mother, without genealogy\u201d; they appear abruptly, with no\npersonal introduction, they deliver their message, and then disappear with\nequal abruptness. Sometimes not even their names are given. They had the\none qualification compared with which birth and sex, rank and reputation,\nwere trivial and meaningless things. The living word of Jehovah was on\ntheir lips; the power of His Spirit controlled their hearers; messenger\nand message were alike their own credentials. The supreme religious\nauthority of the prophet testified to the subordinate and accidental\ncharacter of all rites and symbols. On the other hand, the combination of\npriest and prophet in the same system proved the loftiest spirituality,\nthe most emphatic recognition of the direct communion of the soul with\nGod, to be consistent with an elaborate and rigid system of ritual. The\nservices and ministry of the Temple were like lamps whose flame showed\npale and dim when earth and heaven were lit up by the lightnings of\nprophetic inspiration.\n\nThe gifts and functions of the prophets did not lend themselves to any\nregular discipline or organisation; but we can roughly distinguish between\ntwo classes of prophets. One class seem to have exercised their gifts more\nsystematically and continuously than others. Gad and Nathan, Isaiah and\nJeremiah, became practically the domestic chaplains and spiritual advisers\nof David, Hezekiah, and the last kings of Judah. Others are only mentioned\nas delivering a single message; their ministry seems to have been\noccasional, perhaps confined to a single period of their lives. The Divine\nSpirit was free to take the whole life or to take a part only; He was not\nto be conditioned even by gifts of His own bestowal.\n\nHuman organisation naturally attempted to classify the possessors of the\nprophetic gift, to set them apart as a regular order, perhaps even to\nprovide them with a suitable training, and, still more impossible task, to\nselect the proper recipients of the gift and to produce and foster the\nprophetic inspiration. We read elsewhere of \u201cschools of the prophets\u201d and\n\u201csons of the prophets.\u201d The chronicler omits all reference to such\ninstitutions or societies; he declines to assign them any place in the\nprophetic succession in Israel. The gift of prophecy was absolutely\ndependent on the Divine will, and could not be claimed as a necessary\nappurtenance of the royal court at Jerusalem or a regular order in the\nkingdom of Judah. The priests are included in the list of David\u2019s\nministers, but not the prophets Gad and Nathan. Abijah mentions among the\nspecial privileges of Judah \u201cpriests ministering unto Jehovah, even the\nsons of Aaron and the Levites in their work\u201d; it does not occur to him to\nname prophets among the regular and permanent ministers of Jehovah.\n\nThe chronicler, in fact, does not recognise the professional prophet. The\nfifty sons of the prophets that watched Elisha divide the waters in the\nname of the God of Elijah were no more prophets for him than the four\nhundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of the\nAsherah that ate at Jezebel\u2019s table. The true prophet, like Amos, need not\nbe either a prophet or the son of a prophet in the professional sense.\nLong before the chronicler\u2019s time the history and teaching of the great\nprophets had clearly established the distinction between the professional\nprophet, who was appointed by man or by himself, and the inspired\nmessenger, who received a direct commission from Jehovah.\n\nIn describing the prophet\u2019s sole qualification we have also stated his\nfunction. He was the messenger of Jehovah, and declared His will. The\npriest in his ministrations represented Israel before God, and in a\nmeasure represented God to Israel. The rites and ceremonies over which he\npresided symbolised the permanent and unchanging features of man\u2019s\nreligious experience and me eternal righteousness and mercy of Him who is\nthe same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. From generation to generation\nmen received the good gifts of God, and brought the offerings of their\ngratitude; they sinned against God and came to seek forgiveness; and the\nhouse of Aaron met them generation after generation in the same priestly\nrobes, with the same rites, in the one Temple, in token of the unchanging\nwillingness of Jehovah to accept and forgive His children.\n\nThe prophet, too, represented God to man; his words were the words of God;\nthrough him the Divine presence and the Divine Spirit exerted their\ninfluence over the hearts and consciences of his hearers. But while the\npriestly ministrations symbolised the fixity and permanence of God\u2019s\neternal majesty, the prophets expressed the infinite variety of His Divine\nnature and its continual adaptation to all the changes of human life. They\ncame to the individual and to the nation in each crisis of history with\nthe Divine message that enabled them to suit themselves to altered\ncircumstances, to grapple with new difficulties, and to solve new\nproblems. The priest and the prophet together set forth the great paradox\nthat the unchanging God is the source of all change.\n\n\n    \u201cLord God, by whom all change is wrought,\n    By whom new things to birth are brought,\n      In whom no change is known,\n\n    To Thee we rise, in Thee we rest;\n    We stay at home, we go in quest,\n        Still Thou art our abode:\n    The rapture swells, the wonder grows,\n    As full on us new life still flows\n      From our unchanging God.\u201d\n\n\nThe prophetic utterances recorded by the chronicler illustrate the work of\nthe prophets in delivering the message that met the present needs of the\npeople. There is nothing in Chronicles to encourage the unspiritual notion\nthat the main object of prophecy was to give exact and detailed\ninformation as to the remote future. There is prediction necessarily: it\nwas impossible to declare the will of God without stating the punishment\nof sin and the victory of righteousness; but prediction is only part of\nthe declaration of God\u2019s will. In Gad and Nathan prophecy appears as a\nmeans of communication between the inquiring soul and God; it does not,\nindeed, gratify curiosity, but rather gives guidance in perplexity and\ndistress. The later prophets constantly intervene to initiate reform or to\nhinder the carrying out of an evil policy. Gad and Nathan lent their\nauthority to David\u2019s organisation of the Temple music; Asa\u2019s reform\noriginated in the exhortation of Oded the prophet; Jehoshaphat went out to\nmeet the Moabite and Ammonite invaders in response to the inspiriting\nutterance of Jahaziel the Levite; Josiah consulted the prophetess Huldah\nbefore carrying out his reformation; the chiefs of Ephraim sent back the\nJewish captives in obedience to another Oded. On the other hand, Shemaiah\nprevented Rehoboam from fighting against Israel; Micaiah warned Ahab and\nJehoshaphat not to go up against Ramoth-gilead.\n\nOften, however, the prophetic message gives the interpretation of history,\nthe Divine judgment upon conduct, with its sentence of punishment or\nreward. Hanani the seer, for instance, comes to Asa to show him the real\nvalue of his apparently satisfactory alliance with Benhadad, king of\nSyria: \u201cBecause thou hast relied on the king of Syria, and hast not relied\non Jehovah thy God, therefore is the host of the king of Syria escaped out\nof thine hand.... Herein thou hast done foolishly; for from henceforth\nthou shalt have wars.\u201d Jehoshaphat is told why his ships were broken:\n\u201cBecause thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, Jehovah hath destroyed thy\nworks.\u201d Thus the prophetic declaration of Divine judgment came to mean\nalmost exclusively rebuke and condemnation. The witness of a good\nconscience may be left to speak for itself; God does not often need to\nsend a prophet to His obedient servants in order to signify His approval\nof their righteous acts. But the censures of conscience need both the\nstimulus of external suggestion and the support of external authority.\nUpon the prophets was constantly laid the unwelcome task of rousing and\nbracing the conscience for its stern duty. They became the heralds of\nDivine wrath, the precursors of national misfortune. Often, too, the\nwarnings that should have saved the people were neglected or resented, and\nthus became the occasion of new sin and severer punishment. We must not,\nhowever, lay too much stress on this aspect of the prophets\u2019 work. They\nwere no mere Cassandras, announcing inevitable ruin at the hands of a\nblind destiny; they were not always, or even chiefly, the messengers of\ncoming doom. If they declared the wrath of God, they also vindicated His\njustice; in the day of the Lord which they so often foretold, mercy and\ngrace tempered and at last overcame judgment. They taught, even in their\nsternest utterances, the moral government of the world and the benevolent\npurpose of its Ruler. These are man\u2019s only hope, even in his sin and\nsuffering, the only ground for effort, and the only comfort in misfortune.\n\nThere are, however, one or two elements in the chronicler\u2019s notices of the\nprophets that scarcely harmonise with this general picture. The scanty\nreferences of the books of Samuel and Kings to the \u201cschools\u201d and sons of\nthe prophets have suggested the theory that the prophets were the\nguardians of national education, culture, and literature. The chronicler\nexpressly assigns the function to the Levites, and does not recognise that\nthe \u201cschools of the prophets\u201d had any permanent significance for the\nreligion of Israel, possibly because they chiefly appear in connection\nwith the northern kingdom. At the same time, we find this idea of the\nliterary character of the prophets in Chronicles in a new form. The\nauthorities referred to in the subscriptions to each reign bear the names\nof the prophets who flourished during the reign. The primary significance\nof the tradition followed by the chronicler is the supreme importance of\nthe prophet for his period; he, and not the king, gives it a distinctive\ncharacter. Therefore the prophet gives his name to his period, as the\nconsuls at Rome, the Archon Basileus at Athens, and the Assyrian priests\ngave their own names to their year of office. Probably by the time\nChronicles was written the view had been adopted which we know prevailed\nlater on, and it was supposed that the prophets wrote the Historical Books\nwhich bore their names. The ancient prophets had given the Divine\ninterpretation of the course of events and pronounced the Divine judgment\non history. The Historical Books were written for religious edification;\nthey contained a similar interpretation and judgment. The religious\ninstincts of later Judaism rightly classed them with the prophetic\nScriptures.\n\nThe striking contrast we have been able to trace between the priests and\nthe prophets in their qualifications and duties extends also to their\nrewards. The book of Kings gives us glimpses of the way in which the\nreverent gratitude of the people made some provision for the maintenance\nof the prophets. We are all familiar with the hospitality of the\nShunammite, and we read how \u201ca man from Baal-shalishah\u201d brought\nfirst-fruits to Elisha.(307) But the chronicler omits all such references\nas being connected with the northern kingdom, and does not give us any\nsimilar information as to the prophets of Judah. He is not usually\nindifferent as to ways and means. He devotes some space to the revenues of\nthe kings of Judah, and delights to dwell on the sources of priestly\nincome. But it never seems to occur to him that the prophets have any\nwants to be provided for. To use George Macdonald\u2019s phrase, he is quite\ncontent to leave them \u201con the lily and sparrow footing.\u201d The priesthood\nand the Levites must be richly endowed; the honour of Israel and of\nJehovah is concerned in their having cities, tithes, first-fruits, and\nofferings. Prophets are sent to reproach the people when the priestly dues\nare withheld; but for themselves the prophets might have said with St.\nPaul, \u201cWe seek not yours, but you.\u201d No one supposed that the authority and\ndignity of the prophets needed to be supported by ecclesiastical status,\nsplendid robes, and great incomes. Spiritual force so manifestly resided\nin them that they could afford to dispense with the most impressive\nsymbols of power and authority. On the other hand, they received an honour\nthat was never accorded to the priesthood: they suffered persecution for\nthe cause of Jehovah. Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was put to death, and\nMicaiah the son of Imlah was imprisoned. We are never told that the priest\nas priest suffered persecution. Ahaz closed the Temple, Manasseh set up an\nidol in the house of God, but we do not read of either Ahaz or Manasseh\nthat they slew the priests of Jehovah. The teaching of the prophets was\ndirect and personal, and thus eminently calculated to excite resentment\nand provoke persecution; the priestly services, however, did not at all\ninterfere with concurrent idolatry, and the priests were accustomed to\nreceive and execute the orders of the kings. There is nothing to suggest\nthat they sought to obtrude the worship of Jehovah upon unwilling\nconverts; and it is not improbable that some, at any rate, of the priests\nallowed themselves to be made the tools of the wicked kings. On the eve of\nthe Captivity we read that \u201cthe chiefs of the priests and the people\ntrespassed very greatly after all the abominations of the heathen, and\nthey polluted the house of Jehovah.\u201d No such disloyalty is recorded of the\nprophets in Chronicles. The most splendid incomes cannot purchase loyalty.\nIt is still true that \u201cthe hireling fleeth because he is a hireling\u201d;\nmen\u2019s most passionate devotion is for the cause in which they have\nsuffered.\n\nWe have seen that the modern ministry presents certain parallels to the\nancient priesthood. Where are we to look for an analogue to the prophet?\nIf the minister be, in a sense, a priest when he leads the worship of the\npeople, is he also a prophet when he preaches to them? Preaching is\nintended to be\u2014perhaps we may venture to say that it mostly is\u2014a\ndeclaration of the will of God. Moreover, it is not the exposition of a\nfixed and unchangeable ritual or even of a set of rigid theological\nformul\u00e6. The preacher, like the prophet, seeks to meet the demands for new\nlight that are made by constantly changing circumstances; he seeks to\nadapt the eternal truth to the varying needs of individual lives. So far\nhe is a prophet, but the essential qualifications of the prophet are still\nto be sought after. Isaiah and Jeremiah did not declare the word of\nJehovah as they had learnt it from a Bible or any other book, nor yet\naccording to the traditions of a school or the teaching of great\nauthorities; such declaration might be made by the scribes and rabbis in\nlater times. But the prophets of Chronicles received their message from\nJehovah Himself; while they mused upon the needs of the people, the fire\nof inspiration burned within them; then they spoke. Moreover, like their\ngreat antitype, they spoke with authority, and not as the scribes; their\nwords carried with them conviction even when they did not produce\nobedience. The reality of men\u2019s conviction of their Divine authority was\nshown by the persecution to which they were subjected. Are these tokens of\nthe prophet also the notes of the Christian ministry of preaching?\nProphets were found among the house of Aaron and from the tribe of Levi,\nbut not every Levite or priest was a prophet. Every branch of the\nChristian Church has numbered among its official ministers men who\ndelivered their message with an inspired conviction of its truth; in them\nthe power and presence of the Spirit have compelled a belief in their\nauthority to speak for God: this belief has received the twofold\nattestation of hearts and consciences submitted to the Divine will on the\none hand or of bitter and rancorous hostility on the other. In every\nChurch we find the record of men who have spoken, \u201cnot in words which\nman\u2019s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth.\u201d Such were Wyclif\nand Latimer, Calvin and Luther, George Whitefield and the Wesleys; such,\ntoo, were Moffat and Livingstone. Nor need we suppose that in the modern\nChristian Church the gift of prophecy has been confined to men of\nbrilliant genius who have been conspicuously successful. In the sacred\ncanon Haggai and Obadiah stand side by side with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and\nEzekiel. The chronicler recognises the prophetic calling of men too\nobscure to be mentioned by name. He whom God hath sent speaketh the words\nof God, not necessarily the orator whom men crowd to hear and whose name\nis recorded in history; and God giveth not the Spirit by measure. Many of\nthe least distinguished of His servants are truly His prophets, speaking,\nby the conviction He has given them, a message which comes home with power\nto some hearts at any rate, and is a savour of life unto life and of death\nunto death. The seals of their ministry are to be found in redeemed and\npurified lives, and also only too often in the bitter and vindictive\nill-will of those whom their faithfulness has offended.\n\nWe naturally expect to find that the official ministry affords the most\nsuitable sphere for the exercise of the gift of prophecy. Those who are\nconscious of a Divine message will often seek the special opportunities\nwhich the ministry affords. But our study of Chronicles reminds us that\nthe vocation of the prophet cannot be limited to any external\norganisation; it was not confined to the official ministry of Israel; it\ncannot be conditioned by recognition by bishops, presbyteries,\nconferences, or Churches; it will often find its only external credential\nin a gracious influence over individual lives. Nay, the prophet may have\nhis Divine vocation and be entirely rejected of men. In Chronicles we find\nprophets, like Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, whose one Divine message is\nreceived with scorn and defiance.\n\nIn practice, if not in theory, the Churches have long since recognised\nthat the prophetic gift is found outside any official ministry, and that\nthey may be taught the will of God by men and women of all ranks and\ncallings. They have provided opportunities for the free exercise of such\ngifts in lay preaching, missions, Sunday-schools, meetings of all kinds.\n\nWe have here stumbled upon another modern controversy: the desirability of\nwomen preaching. Chronicles mentions prophetesses as well as prophets; on\nthe other hand, there were no Jewish priestesses. The modern minister\ncombines some priestly duties with the opportunity, at least, of\nexercising the gift of prophecy. The mention of only two or three\nprophetesses in the Old Testament shows that the possession of the gift by\nwomen was exceptional. These few instances, however, are sufficient to\nprove that God did not in old times limit the gift to men; they suggest at\nany rate the possibility of its being possessed by women now, and when\nwomen have a Divine message the Church will not venture to quench the\nSpirit. Of course the application of these broad principles would have to\nbe adapted to the circumstances of individual Churches. Huldah, for\ninstance, is not described as delivering any public address to the people;\nthe king sent his ministers to consult her in her own house. Whatever\nhesitation may be felt about the public ministry of women, no one will\nquestion their Divine commission to carry the messages of God to the\nbedsides of the sick and the homes of the poor. Most of us have known\nwomen to whom men have gone, as Josiah\u2019s ministers went to Huldah, to\n\u201cinquire of the Lord.\u201d\n\nAnother practical question, the payment of the ministers of religion, has\nalready been raised by the chronicler\u2019s account of the revenues of the\npriests. What more do we learn on the subject from his silence as to the\nmaintenance of the prophets? The silence is, of course, eloquent as to the\nextent to which even a pious Levite may be preoccupied with his own\nworldly interests and quite indifferent to other people\u2019s; but it would\nnot have been possible if the idea of revenues and endowments for the\nprophets had ever been very familiar to men\u2019s minds. It has been said that\nto-day the prophet sells his inspiration, but the gift of God can no more\nbe bought and sold with money now than in ancient Israel. The purely\nspiritual character of true prophecy, its entire dependence on Divine\ninspiration, makes it impossible to hire a prophet at a fixed salary\nregulated by the quality and extent of his gifts. By the grace of God,\nthere is an intimate practical connection between the work of the official\nministry and the inspired declaration of the Divine will; and this\nconnection has its bearing upon the payment of ministers. Men\u2019s gratitude\nis stirred when they have received comfort and help through the spiritual\ngifts of their minister, but in principle there is no connection between\nthe gift of prophecy and the payment of the ministry. A Church can\npurchase the enjoyment of eloquence, learning, intellect, and industry; a\nhigh character has a pecuniary value for ecclesiastical as well as for\ncommercial purposes. The prophet may be provided with leisure, society,\nand literature so that the Divine message may be delivered in its most\nattractive form; he may be installed in a large and well-appointed\nbuilding, so that he may have the best possible opportunity of delivering\nhis message; he will naturally receive a larger income when he surrenders\nobscure and limited opportunities to minister in some more suitable\nsphere. But when we have said all, it is still only the accessories that\nhave to do with payment, not the Divine gift of prophecy itself. When the\nprophet\u2019s message is not comforting, when his words grate upon the\ntheological and social prejudices of his hearers, especially when he is\ninvited to curse and is Divinely compelled to bless, there is no question\nof payment for such ministry. It has been said of Christ, \u201cFor the minor\ndetails necessary to secure respect, and obedience, and the enthusiasm of\nthe vulgar, for the tact, the finesse, the compromising faculty, the\njudicious ostentation of successful politicians\u2014for these arts He was not\nprepared.\u201d(308) Those who imitate their Master often share His reward.\n\nThe slight and accidental connection of the payment of ministers with\ntheir prophetic gifts is further illustrated by the free exercise of such\ngifts by men and women who have no ecclesiastical status and do not seek\nany material reward. Here again any exact adoption of ancient methods is\nimpossible; we may accept from the chronicler the great principle that\nloyal believers will make all adequate provision for the service and work\nof Jehovah, and that they will be prepared to honour Him in the persons of\nthose whom they choose to represent them before Him, and also of those\nwhom they recognise as delivering to them His messages. On the other hand,\nthe prophet\u2014and for our present purpose we may extend the term to the\nhumblest and least gifted Christian who in any way seeks to speak for\nChrist\u2014the prophet speaks by the impulse of the Spirit and from no meaner\nmotive.\n\nWith regard to the functions of the prophet, the Spirit is as entirely\nfree to dictate His own message as He is to choose His own messenger. The\nchronicler\u2019s prophets were concerned with foreign politics\u2014alliances with\nSyria and Assyria, wars with Egypt and Samaria\u2014as well as with the ritual\nof the Temple and the worship of Jehovah. They discerned a religious\nsignificance in the purely secular matter of a census. Jehovah had His\npurposes for the civil government and international policy of Israel as\nwell as for its creed and services. If we lay down the principle that\npolitics, whether local or national, are to be kept out of the pulpit, we\nmust either exclude from the official ministry all who possess any measure\nof the prophetic gift, or else carefully stipulate that, if they be\nconscious of any obligation to declare the Lord\u2019s will in matters of\npublic righteousness, they shall find some more suitable place than the\nLord\u2019s house and some more suitable time than the Lord\u2019s day. When we\nsuggest that the prophet should mind his own business by confining himself\nto questions of doctrine, worship, and the religious experiences of the\nindividual, we are in danger of denying God\u2019s right to a voice in social\nand national affairs.\n\nTurning, however, to more directly ecclesiastical affairs, we have noted\nthat Asa\u2019s reformation received its first impulse from the utterances of\nthe prophet Azariah or Oded, and also that one feature of the prophet\u2019s\nwork is to provide for the fresh needs developed by changing\ncircumstances. A priesthood or any other official ministry is often\nwanting in elasticity; it is necessarily attached to an established\norganisation and trammelled by custom and tradition. The Holy Spirit in\nall ages has commissioned prophets as the free agents in new movements in\nthe Divine government of the world. They may be ecclesiastics, like many\nof the Reformers and like the Wesleys; but they are not dominated by the\nofficial spirit. The initial impulse that moves such men is partly one of\nrecoil from their environment; and the environment in return casts them\nout. Again, prophets may become ecclesiastics, like the tinker to whom\nEnglish-speaking Christians owe one of their great religious classics and\nthe cobbler who stirred up the Churches to missionary enthusiasm. Or they\nmay remain from beginning to end without official status in any Church,\nlike the apostle of the anti-slavery movement. In any case the impulse to\na larger, purer, and nobler standard of life than that consecrated by long\nusage and ancient tradition does not come from the ecclesiastical official\nbecause of his official training and experience; the living waters that go\nout of Jerusalem in the day of the Lord are too wide, and deep, and strong\nto flow in the narrow rock-hewn aqueducts of tradition: they make new\nchannels for themselves; and these channels are the men who do not demand\nthat the Spirit shall speak according to familiar formul\u00e6 and stereotyped\nideas, but are willing to be the prophets of strange and even uncongenial\ntruth. Or, to use the great metaphor of St. John\u2019s Gospel, with such men,\nboth for themselves and for others, the water that the Lord gives them\nbecomes a well of water springing up unto eternal life.\n\nBut the chronicler\u2019s picture of the work of the prophets has its darker\nside. Few were privileged to give the signal for an immediate and happy\nreformation. Most of the prophets were charged with messages of rebuke and\ncondemnation, so that they were ready to cry out with Jeremiah, \u201cWoe is\nme, my mother, that thou hast borne me, a man of strife and a man of\ncontention to the whole earth! I have not lent on usury, neither have men\nlent to me on usury, yet every one of them doth curse me.\u201d(309)\n\nPerhaps even to-day the prophetic spirit often charges its possessors with\nequally unwelcome duties. We trust that the Christian conscience is more\nsensitive than that of ancient Israel, and that the Church is more ready\nto profit by the warnings addressed to it; but the response to the sterner\nteaching of the Spirit is not always accompanied by a kindly feeling\ntowards the teacher, and even where there is progress, the progress is\nslow compared to the eager longing of the prophet for the spiritual growth\nof his hearers. And yet the sequel of the chronicler\u2019s history suggests\nsome relief to the gloomier side of the picture. Prophet after prophet\nutters his unavailing and seemingly useless rebuke, and delivers his\nannouncement of coming ruin, and at last the ruin falls upon the nation.\nBut that is not the end. Before the chronicler wrote there had arisen a\nrestored Israel, purified from idolatry and delivered from many of its\nformer troubles. The Restoration was only rendered possible through the\ncontinued testimony of the prophets to the Lord and His righteousness.\nHowever barren of immediate results such testimony may seem to-day, it is\nstill the word of the Lord that cannot return unto Him void, but shall\naccomplish that which He pleaseth and shall prosper in the thing whereto\nHe sent it.\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s conception of the prophetic character of the historian,\nwhereby his narrative sets forth God\u2019s win and interprets His purposes, is\nnot altogether popular at present. The teleological view of history is\nsomewhat at a discount. Yet the prophetic method, so to speak, of Carlyle\nand Ruskin is largely historical; and even in so unlikely a quarter as the\nworks of George Eliot we can find an example of didactic history. _Romola_\nis largely taken up with the story of Savonarola, told so as to bring out\nits religious significance. But teleological history is sometimes a\nfailure even from the standpoint of the Christian student, because it\ndefeats its own ends. He who is bent on deducing lessons from history may\nlay undue stress on part of its significance and obscure the rest. The\nhistorian is perhaps most a prophet when he leaves history to speak for\nitself. In this sense, we may venture to attribute a prophetic character\nto purely scientific history; accurate and unbiassed narrative is the best\nstarting-point for the study of the religious significance of the course\nof events.\n\nIn concluding our inquiry as to how far modern Church life is illustrated\nby the work of the prophets, one is tempted to dwell for a moment on the\nmethods they did not use and the subjects not dealt with in their\nutterances. This theme, however, scarcely belongs to the exposition of\nChronicles; it would be more appropriate to a complete examination of the\nhistory and writings of the prophets. One point, however, may be noticed.\nTheir utterances in Chronicles lay less direct stress on moral\nconsiderations than the writings of the canonical prophets, not because of\nany indifference to morality, but because, seen in the distance of a\nremote past, all other sins seemed to be summed up in faithlessness to\nJehovah. Perhaps we may see in this a suggestion of a final judgment of\nhistory, which should be equally instructive to the religious man who has\nany inclination to disparage morality and to the moral man who wishes to\nignore religion.\n\nOur review and discussion of the varied references of Chronicles to the\nprophets brings home to us with fresh force the keen interest felt in them\nby the chronicler and the supreme importance he attached to their work.\nThe reverent homage of a Levite of the second Temple centuries after the\ngolden age of prophecy is an eloquent testimony to the unique position of\nthe prophets in Israel. His treatment of the subject shows that the lofty\nideal of their office and mission had lost nothing in the course of the\ndevelopment of Judaism; his selection from the older material emphasises\nthe independence of the true prophet of any professional status or\nconsideration of material reward; his sense of the importance of the\nprophets to the State and Church in Judah is an encouragement to those\n\u201cwho look for redemption in Jerusalem,\u201d and who trust the eternal promise\nof God that in all times of His people\u2019s need He \u201cwill raise up a prophet\nfrom among their brethren, ... and I will put My words in his mouth, and\nhe shall speak unto them all that I shall command them.\u201d(310) \u201cThe\nmemorial of the prophets was blessed, ... for they comforted Jacob, and\ndelivered them by assured hope.\u201d(311) Many prophets of the Church have\nalso left a blessed memorial of comfort and deliverance, and God ever\nrenews this more than apostolic succession.\n\n\n\n\nChapter X. Satan. 1 Chron. xxi.-xxii. 1.\n\n\n    \u201cAnd again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and He\n    moved David against them saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.\u201d\u20142\n    SAM. xxiv. 1.\n\n    \u201cAnd Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number\n    Israel.\u201d\u20141 CHRON. xxi. 1.\n\n    \u201cLet no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God\n    cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempteth no man: but\n    each man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and\n    enticed.\u201d\u2014JAMES i, 13, 14.\n\n\nThe census of David is found both in the book of Samuel and in Chronicles,\nin very much the same form; but the chronicler has made a number of small\nbut important alterations and additions. Taken together, these changes\ninvolve a new interpretation of the history, and bring out lessons that\ncannot so easily be deduced from the narrative in the book of Samuel.\nHence it is necessary to give a separate exposition of the narrative in\nChronicles.\n\nAs before, we will first review the alterations made by the chronicler and\nthen expound the narrative in the form in which it left his hand, or\nrather in the form in which it stands in the Masoretic text. Any attempt\nto deal with the peculiarly complicated problem of the textual criticism\nof Chronicles would be out of place here. Probably there are no\ncorruptions of the text that would appreciably affect the general\nexposition of this chapter.\n\nAt the very outset the chronicler substitutes Satan for Jehovah, and thus\nchanges the whole significance of the narrative. This point is too\nimportant to be dealt with casually, and must be reserved for special\nconsideration later on. In ver. 2 there is a slight change that marks the\ndifferent points of the views of the Chronicler and the author of the\nnarrative in the book of Samuel. The latter had written that Joab numbered\nthe people from Dan to Beersheba, a merely conventional phrase indicating\nthe extent of the census. It might possibly, however, have been taken to\ndenote that the census began in the north and was concluded in the south.\nTo the chronicler, whose interests all centred in Judah, such an\narrangement seemed absurd; and he carefully guarded against any mistake by\naltering \u201cDan to Beersheba\u201d into \u201cBeersheba to Dan.\u201d In ver. 3 the\nsubstance of Joab\u2019s words is not altered, but various slight touches are\nadded to bring out more clearly and forcibly what is implied in the book\nof Samuel. Joab had spoken of the census as being the king\u2019s\npleasure.(312) It was scarcely appropriate to speak of David \u201ctaking\npleasure in\u201d a suggestion of Satan. In Chronicles Joab\u2019s words are less\nforcible, \u201cWhy doth my lord require this thing?\u201d Again, in the book of\nSamuel Joab protests against the census without assigning any reason. The\ncontext, it is true, readily supplies one; but in Chronicles all is made\nclear by the addition, \u201cWhy will he\u201d (David) \u201cbe a cause of guilt unto\nIsrael?\u201d Further on the chronicler\u2019s special interest in Judah again\nbetrays itself. The book of Samuel described, with some detail, the\nprogress of the enumerators through Eastern and Northern Palestine by way\nof Beersheba to Jerusalem. Chronicles having already made them start from\nBeersheba, omits these details.\n\nIn ver. 5 the numbers in Chronicles differ not only from those of the\nolder narrative, but also from the chronicler\u2019s own statistics in chap.\nxxvii. In this last account the men of war are divided into twelve courses\nof twenty-four thousand each, making a total of two hundred and\neighty-eight thousand; in the book of Samuel Israel numbers eight hundred\nthousand, and Judah five hundred thousand; but in our passage Israel is\nincreased to eleven hundred thousand, and Judah is reduced to four hundred\nand seventy thousand. Possibly the statistics in chap. xxvii. are not\nintended to include all the fighting men, otherwise the figures cannot be\nharmonised. The discrepancy between our passage and the book of Samuel is\nperhaps partly explained by the following verse, which is an addition of\nthe chronicler. In the book of Samuel the census is completed, but our\nadditional verse states that Levi and Benjamin were not included in the\ncensus. The chronicler understood that the five hundred thousand assigned\nto Judah in the older narrative were the joint total of Judah and\nBenjamin; he accordingly reduced the total by thirty thousand, because,\naccording to his view, Benjamin was omitted from the census. The increase\nin the number of the Israelites is unexpected. The chronicler does not\nusually overrate the northern tribes. Later on Jeroboam, eighteen years\nafter the disruption, takes the field against Abijah with \u201ceight hundred\nthousand chosen men,\u201d a phrase that implies a still larger number of\nfighting men, if all had been mustered. Obviously the rebel king would not\nbe expected to be able to bring into the field as large a force as the\nentire strength of Israel in the most flourishing days of David. The\nchronicler\u2019s figures in these two passages are consistent, but the\ncomparison is not an adequate reason for the alteration in the present\nchapter. Textual corruption is always a possibility in case of numbers,\nbut on the whole this particular change does not admit of a satisfactory\nexplanation.\n\nIn ver. 7 we have a very striking alteration. According to the book of\nSamuel, David\u2019s repentance was entirely spontaneous: \u201cDavid\u2019s heart smote\nhim after that he had numbered the people\u201d(313); but here God smites\nIsrael, and then David\u2019s conscience awakes. In ver. 12 the chronicler\nmakes a slight addition, apparently to gratify his literary taste. In the\noriginal narrative the third alternative offered to David had been\ndescribed simply as \u201cthe pestilence,\u201d but in Chronicles the words \u201cthe\nsword of Jehovah\u201d are added in antithesis to \u201cthe sword of Thine enemies\u201d\nin the previous verse.\n\nVer. 16, which describes David\u2019s vision of the angel with the drawn sword,\nis an expansion of the simple statement of the book of Samuel that David\nsaw the angel. In ver. 18 we are not merely told that Gad spake to David,\nbut that he spake by the command of the angel of Jehovah. Ver. 20, which\ntells us how Ornan saw the angel, is an addition of the chronicler\u2019s. All\nthese changes lay stress upon the intervention of the angel, and\nillustrate the interest taken by Judaism in the ministry of angels.\nZechariah, the prophet of the Restoration, received his messages by the\ndispensation of angels; and the title of the last canonical prophet,\nMalachi, probably means \u201cthe Angel.\u201d The change from Araunah to Ornan is a\nmere question of spelling. Possibly Ornan is a somewhat Hebraised form of\nthe older Jebusite name Araunah.\n\nIn ver. 22 the reference to \u201ca full price\u201d and other changes in the form\nof David\u2019s words are probably due to the influence of Gen. xxiii. 9. In\nver. 23 the chronicler\u2019s familiarity with the ritual of sacrifice has led\nhim to insert a reference to a meal offering, to accompany the burnt\noffering. Later on the chronicler omits the somewhat ambiguous words which\nseem to speak of Araunah as a king. He would naturally avoid anything like\na recognition of the royal status of a Jebusite prince.\n\nIn ver. 25 David pays much more dearly for Ornan\u2019s threshing-floor than in\nthe book of Samuel. In the latter the price is fifty shekels of silver, in\nthe former six hundred shekels of gold. Most ingenious attempts have been\nmade to harmonise the two statements. It has been suggested that fifty\nshekels of silver means silver to the value of fifty shekels of gold and\npaid in gold, and that six hundred shekels of gold means the value of six\nhundred shekels of silver paid in gold. A more lucid but equally\nimpossible explanation is that David paid fifty shekels for every tribe,\nsix hundred in all.(314) The real reason for the change is that when the\nTemple became supremely important to the Jews the small price of fifty\nshekels for the site seemed derogatory to the dignity of the sanctuary;\nsix hundred shekels of gold was a more appropriate sum. Abraham had paid\nfour hundred shekels for a burying-place; and a site for the Temple, where\nJehovah had chosen to put His name, must surely have cost more. The\nchronicler followed the tradition which had grown up under the influence\nof this feeling.\n\nChaps. xxi. 27-xxii. 1 are an addition. According to the Levitical law,\nDavid was falling into grievous sin in sacrificing anywhere except before\nthe Mosaic altar of burnt offering. The chronicler therefore states the\nspecial circumstances that palliated this offence against the exclusive\nprivileges of the one sanctuary of Jehovah. He also reminds us that this\nthreshing-floor became the site of the altar of burnt offering for\nSolomon\u2019s temple. Here he probably follows an ancient and historical\ntradition; the prominence given to the threshing-floor in the book of\nSamuel indicates the special sanctity of the site. The Temple is the only\nsanctuary whose site could be thus connected with the last days of David.\nWhen the book of Samuel was written, the facts were too familiar to need\nany explanation; every one knew that the Temple stood on the site of\nAraunah\u2019s threshing-floor. The chronicler, writing centuries later, felt\nit necessary to make an explicit statement on the subject.\n\nHaving thus attempted to understand how our narrative assumed its present\nform, we will now tell the chronicler\u2019s story of these incidents. The long\nreign of David was drawing to a close. Hitherto he had been blessed with\nuninterrupted prosperity and success. His armies had been victorious over\nall the enemies of Israel, the borders of the land of Jehovah had been\nextended, David himself was lodged with princely splendour, and the\nservices of the Ark were conducted with imposing ritual by a numerous\narray of priests and Levites. King and people alike were at the zenith of\ntheir glory. In worldly prosperity and careful attention to religious\nobservances David and his people were not surpassed by Job himself.\nApparently their prosperity provoked the envious malice of an evil and\nmysterious being, who appears only here in Chronicles: Satan, the\npersecutor of Job. The trial to which he subjected the loyalty of David\nwas more subtle and suggestive than his assault upon Job. He harassed Job\nas the wind dealt with the traveller in the fable, and Job only wrapped\nthe cloak of his faith closer about him; Satan allowed David to remain in\nthe full sunshine of prosperity, and seduced him into sin by fostering his\npride in being the powerful and victorious prince of a mighty people. He\nsuggested a census. David\u2019s pride would be gratified by obtaining accurate\ninformation as to the myriads of his subjects. Such statistics would be\nuseful for the civil organisation of Israel; the king would learn where\nand how to recruit his army or to find an opportunity to impose additional\ntaxation. The temptation appealed alike to the king, the soldier, and the\nstatesman, and did not appeal in vain. David at once instructed Joab and\nthe princes to proceed with the enumeration; Joab demurred and protested:\nthe census would be a cause of guilt unto Israel. But not even the great\ninfluence of the commander-in-chief could turn the king from his purpose.\nHis word prevailed against Joab, wherefore Joab departed, and went\nthroughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem. This brief general statement\nindicates a long and laborious task, simplified and facilitated in some\nmeasure by the primitive organisation of society and by rough and ready\nmethods adopted to secure the very moderate degree of accuracy with which\nan ancient Eastern sovereign would be contented. When Xerxes wished to\nascertain the number of the vast army with which he set out to invade\nGreece, his officers packed ten thousand men into as small a space as\npossible and built a wall round them; then they turned them out, and\npacked the space again and again; and so in time they ascertained how many\ntens of thousands of men there were in the army. Joab\u2019s methods would be\ndifferent, but perhaps not much more exact. He would probably learn from\nthe \u201cheads of fathers\u2019 houses\u201d the number of fighting men in each family.\nWhere the hereditary chiefs of a district were indifferent, he might make\nsome rough estimate of his own. We may be sure that both Joab and the\nlocal authorities would be careful to err on the safe side. The king was\nanxious to learn that he possessed a large number of subjects. Probably as\nthe officers of Xerxes went on with their counting they omitted to pack\nthe measured area as closely as they did at first; they might allow eight\nor nine thousand to pass for ten thousand. Similarly David\u2019s servants\nwould, to say the least, be anxious not to underestimate the number of his\nsubjects. The work apparently went on smoothly; nothing is said that\nindicates any popular objection or resistance to the census; the process\nof enumeration was not interrupted by any token of Divine displeasure\nagainst the \u201ccause of guilt unto Israel.\u201d Nevertheless Joab\u2019s misgivings\nwere not set at rest; he did what he could to limit the range of the\ncensus and to withdraw at least two of the tribes from the impending\noutbreak of Divine wrath. The tribe of Levi would be exempt from taxation\nand the obligation of military service; Joab could omit them without\nrendering his statistics less useful for military and financial purposes.\nIn not including the Levites in the general census of Israel, Joab was\nfollowing the precedent set by the numbering in the wilderness.\n\nBenjamin was probably omitted in order to protect the Holy City, the\nchronicler following that form of the ancient tradition which assigned\nJerusalem to Benjamin.(315) Later on,(316) however, the chronicler seems\nto imply that these two tribes left to the last were not numbered because\nof the growing dissatisfaction of Joab with his task: \u201cJoab the son of\nZeruiah began to number, but finished not.\u201d But these different reasons\nfor the omission of Levi and Benjamin do not mutually exclude each other.\nAnother limitation is also stated in the later reference: \u201cDavid took not\nthe number of them twenty years old and under, because Jehovah had said\nthat He would increase Israel like to the stars of heaven.\u201d This statement\nand explanation seems a little superfluous; the census was specially\nconcerned with the fighting men, and in the book of Numbers only those\nover twenty are numbered. But we have seen elsewhere that the chronicler\nhas no great confidence in the intelligence of his readers, and feels\nbound to state definitely matters that have only been implied and might be\noverlooked. Here, therefore, he calls our attention to the fact that the\nnumbers previously given do not comprise the whole male population, but\nonly the adults.\n\nAt last the census, so far as it was carried out at all, was finished, and\nthe results were presented to the king. They are meagre and bald compared\nto the volumes of tables which form the report of a modern census. Only\ntwo divisions of the country are recognised: \u201cJudah\u201d and \u201cIsrael,\u201d or the\nten tribes. The total is given for each: eleven hundred thousand for\nIsrael, four hundred and seventy thousand for Judah, in all fifteen\nhundred and seventy thousand. Whatever details may have been given to the\nking, he would be chiefly interested in the grand total. Its figures would\nbe the most striking symbol of the extent of his authority and the glory\nof his kingdom.\n\nPerhaps during the months occupied in taking the census David had\nforgotten the ineffectual protests of Joab, and was able to receive his\nreport without any presentiment of coming evil. Even if his mind were not\naltogether at ease, all misgivings would for the time be forgotten. He\nprobably made or had made for him some rough calculation as to the total\nof men, women, and children that would correspond to the vast array of\nfighting men. His servants would not reckon the entire population at less\nthan nine or ten millions. His heart would be uplifted with pride as he\ncontemplated the statement of the multitudes that were the subjects of his\ncrown and prepared to fight at his bidding. The numbers are moderate\ncompared with the vast populations and enormous armies of the great powers\nof modern Europe; they were far surpassed by the Roman empire and the\nteeming populations of the valleys of the Nile, the Euphrates, and the\nTigris; but during the Middle Ages it was not often possible to find in\nWestern Europe so large a population under one government or so numerous\nan army under one banner. The resources of Cyrus may not have been greater\nwhen he started on his career of conquest; and when Xerxes gathered into\none motley horde the warriors of half the known world, their total was\nonly about double the number of David\u2019s robust and warlike Israelites.\nThere was no enterprise that was likely to present itself to his\nimagination that he might not have undertaken with a reasonable\nprobability of success. He must have regretted that his days of warfare\nwere past, and that the unwarlike Solomon, occupied with more peaceful\ntasks, would allow this magnificent instrument of possible conquests to\nrust unused.\n\nBut the king was not long left in undisturbed enjoyment of his greatness.\nIn the very moment of his exaltation, some sense of the Divine displeasure\nfell upon him.(317) Mankind has learnt by a long and sad experience to\ndistrust its own happiness. The brightest hours have come to possess a\nsuggestion of possible catastrophe, and classic story loved to tell of the\nunavailing efforts of fortunate princes to avoid their inevitable\ndownfall. Polycrates and Cr\u0153sus, however, had not tempted the Divine anger\nby ostentatious pride; David\u2019s power and glory had made him neglectful of\nthe reverent homage due to Jehovah, and he had sinned in spite of the\nexpress warnings of his most trusted minister.\n\nWhen the revulsion of feeling came, it was complete. The king at once\nhumbled himself under the mighty hand of God, and made full acknowledgment\nof his sin and folly: \u201cI have sinned greatly in that I have done this\nthing: but now put away, I beseech Thee, the iniquity of Thy servant, for\nI have done very foolishly.\u201d\n\nThe narrative continues as in the book of Samuel. Repentance could not\navert punishment, and the punishment struck directly at David\u2019s pride of\npower and glory. The great population was to be decimated either by\nfamine, war, or pestilence. The king chose to suffer from the pestilence,\n\u201cthe sword of Jehovah\u201d: \u201cLet me fall now into the hand of Jehovah, for\nvery great are His mercies; and let me not fall into the hand of man. So\nJehovah sent a pestilence upon Israel, and there fell of Israel seventy\nthousand men.\u201d Not three days since Joab handed in his report, and already\na deduction of seventy thousand would have to be made from its total; and\nstill the pestilence was not checked, for \u201cGod sent an angel unto\nJerusalem to destroy it.\u201d If, as we have supposed, Joab had withheld\nJerusalem from the census, his pious caution was now rewarded: \u201cJehovah\nrepented Him of the evil, and said to the destroying angel, It is enough;\nnow stay thine hand.\u201d At the very last moment the crowning catastrophe was\naverted. In the Divine counsels Jerusalem was already delivered, but to\nhuman eyes its fate still trembled in the balance: \u201cAnd David lifted up\nhis eyes, and saw the angel of Jehovah stand between the earth and the\nheaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem.\u201d So\nanother great Israelite soldier lifted up his eyes beside Jericho and\nbeheld the captain of the host of Jehovah standing over against him with\nhis sword drawn in his hand.(318) Then the sword was drawn to smite the\nenemies of Israel, but now it was turned to smite Israel itself. David and\nhis elders fell upon their faces as Joshua had done before them: \u201cAnd\nDavid said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered?\neven I it is that have sinned and done very wickedly; but these sheep,\nwhat have they done? Let Thine hand, I pray Thee, O Jehovah my God, be\nagainst me and against my father\u2019s house, but not against Thy people, that\nthey should be plagued.\u201d\n\nThe awful presence returned no answer to the guilty king, but addressed\nitself to the prophet Gad, and commanded _him_ to bid David go up and\nbuild an altar to Jehovah in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite.\nThe command was a message of mercy. Jehovah permitted David to build Him\nan altar; He was prepared to accept an offering at his hands. The king\u2019s\nprayers were heard, and Jerusalem was saved from the pestilence. But still\nthe angel stretched out his drawn sword over Jerusalem; he waited till the\nreconciliation of Jehovah with His people should have been duly ratified\nby solemn sacrifices. At the bidding of the prophet, David went up to the\nthreshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite. Sorrow and reassurance, hope and\nfear, contended for the mastery. No sacrifice could call back to life the\nseventy thousand victims whom the pestilence had already destroyed, and\nyet the horror of its ravages was almost forgotten in relief at the\ndeliverance of Jerusalem from the calamity that had all but overtaken it.\nEven now the uplifted sword might be only back for a time; Satan might yet\nbring about some heedless and sinful act, and the respite might end not in\npardon, but in the execution of God\u2019s purpose of vengeance. Saul had been\ncondemned because he sacrificed too soon; now perhaps delay would be\nfatal. Uzzah had been smitten because he touched the Ark; till the\nsacrifice was actually offered who could tell whether some thoughtless\nblunder would not again provoke the wrath of Jehovah? Under ordinary\ncircumstances David would not have dared to sacrifice anywhere except upon\nthe altar of burnt offering before the tabernacle at Gibeon; he would have\nused the ministry of priests and Levites. But ritual is helpless in great\nemergencies. The angel of Jehovah with the drawn sword seemed to bar the\nway to Gibeon, as once before he had barred Balaam\u2019s progress when he came\nto curse Israel. In his supreme need David builds his own altar and offers\nhis own sacrifices; he receives the Divine answer without the intervention\nthis time of either priest or prophet. By God\u2019s most merciful and\nmysterious grace, David\u2019s guilt and punishment, his repentance and pardon,\nbroke down all barriers between himself and God.\n\nBut, as he went up to the threshing-floor, he was still troubled and\nanxious. The burden was partly lifted from his heart, but he still craved\nfull assurance of pardon. The menacing attitude of the destroying angel\nseemed to hold out little promise of mercy and forgiveness, and yet the\ncommand to sacrifice would be cruel mockery if Jehovah did not intend to\nbe gracious to His people and His anointed.\n\nAt the threshing-floor Ornan and his four sons were threshing wheat,\napparently unmoved by the prospect of the threatened pestilence. In Egypt\nthe Israelites were protected from the plagues with which their oppressors\nwere punished. Possibly now the situation was reversed, and the remnant of\nthe Canaanites in Palestine were not afflicted by the pestilence that fell\nupon Israel. But Ornan turned back and saw the angel; he may not have\nknown the grim mission with which the Lord\u2019s messenger had been entrusted,\nbut the aspect of the destroyer, his threatening attitude, and the lurid\nradiance of his unsheathed and outstretched sword must have seemed\nunmistakable tokens of coming calamity. Whatever might be threatened for\nthe future, the actual appearance of this supernatural visitant was enough\nto unnerve the stoutest heart; and Ornan\u2019s four sons hid themselves.\n\nBefore long, however, Ornan\u2019s terrors were somewhat relieved by the\napproach of less formidable visitors. The king and his followers had\nventured to show themselves openly, in spite of the destroying angel; and\nthey had ventured with impunity. Ornan went forth and bowed himself to\nDavid with his face to the ground. In ancient days the father of the\nfaithful, oppressed by the burden of his bereavement, went to the Hittites\nto purchase a burying-place for his wife. Now the last of the Patriarchs,\nmourning for the sufferings of his people, came by Divine command to the\nJebusite to purchase the ground on which to offer sacrifices, that the\nplague might be stayed from the people. The form of bargaining was\nsomewhat similar in both cases. We are told that bargains are concluded in\nmuch the same fashion to-day. Abraham had paid four hundred shekels of\nsilver for the field of Ephron in Machpelah, \u201cwith the cave which was\ntherein, and all the trees that were in the field.\u201d The price of Ornan\u2019s\nthreshing-floor was in proportion to the dignity and wealth of the royal\npurchaser and the sacred purpose for which it was designed. The fortunate\nJebusite received no less than six hundred shekels of gold.\n\nDavid built his altar, and offered up his sacrifices and prayers to\nJehovah. Then, in answer to David\u2019s prayers, as later in answer to\nSolomon\u2019s, fire fell from heaven upon the altar of burnt offering, and all\nthis while the sword of Jehovah flamed across the heavens above Jerusalem,\nand the destroying angel remained passive, but to all appearances\nunappeased. But as the fire of God fell from heaven, Jehovah gave yet\nanother final and convincing token that He would no longer execute\njudgment against His people. In spite of all that had happened to reassure\nthem, the spectators must have been thrilled with alarm when they saw that\nthe angel of Jehovah no longer remained stationary, and that his flaming\nsword was moving through the heavens. Their renewed terror was only for a\nmoment: \u201cthe angel put up his sword again into the sheath thereof,\u201d and\nthe people breathed more freely when they saw the instrument of Jehovah\u2019s\nwrath vanish out of their sight.\n\nThe use of Machpelah as a patriarchal burying-place led to the\nestablishment of a sanctuary at Hebron, which continued to be the seat of\na debased and degenerate worship even after the coming of Christ. It is\neven now a Mohammedan holy place. But on the threshing-floor of Ornan the\nJebusite there was to arise a more worthy memorial of the mercy and\njudgment of Jehovah. Without the aid of priestly oracle or prophetic\nutterance, David was led by the Spirit of the Lord to discern the\nsignificance of the command to perform an irregular sacrifice in a\nhitherto unconsecrated place. When the sword of the destroying angel\ninterposed between David and the Mosaic tabernacle and altar of Gibeon,\nthe way was not merely barred against the king and his court on one\nexceptional occasion. The incidents of this crisis symbolised the cutting\noff for ever of the worship of Israel from its ancient shrine and the\ntransference of the Divinely appointed centre of the worship of Jehovah to\nthe threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite, that is to say to Jerusalem,\nthe city of David and the capital of Judah.\n\nThe lessons of this incident, so far as the chronicler has simply borrowed\nfrom his authority, belong to the exposition of the book of Samuel. The\nmain features peculiar to Chronicles are the introduction of the evil\nangel Satan, together with the greater prominence given to the angel of\nJehovah, and the express statement that the scene of David\u2019s sacrifice\nbecame the site of Solomon\u2019s altar of burnt offering.\n\nThe stress laid upon angelic agency is characteristic of later Jewish\nliterature, and is especially marked in Zechariah and Daniel. It was no\ndoubt partly due to the influence of the Persian religion, but it was also\na development from the primitive faith of Israel, and the development was\nfavoured by the course of Jewish history. The Captivity and the\nRestoration, with the events that preceded and accompanied these\nrevolutions, enlarged the Jewish experience of nature and man. The\ncaptives in Babylon and the fugitives in Egypt saw that the world was\nlarger than they had imagined. In Josiah\u2019s reign the Scythians from the\nfar North swept over Western Asia, and the Medes and Persians broke in\nupon Assyria and Chald\u00e6a from the remote East. The prophets claimed\nScythians, Medes, and Persians as the instruments of Jehovah. The Jewish\nappreciation of the majesty of Jehovah, the Maker and Ruler of the world,\nincreased as they learnt more of the world He had made and ruled; but the\ninvasion of a remote and unknown people impressed them with the idea of\ninfinite dominion and unlimited resources, beyond all knowledge and\nexperience. The course of Israelite history between David and Ezra\ninvolved as great a widening of man\u2019s ideas of the universe as the\ndiscovery of America or the establishment of Copernican astronomy. A\nScythian invasion was scarcely less portentous to the Jews than the\ndescent of an irresistible army from the planet Jupiter would be to the\ncivilised nations of the nineteenth century. The Jew began to shrink from\nintimate and familiar fellowship with so mighty and mysterious a Deity. He\nfelt the need of a mediator, some less exalted being, to stand between\nhimself and God. For the ordinary purposes of everyday life the Temple,\nwith its ritual and priesthood, provided a mediation; but for unforeseen\ncontingencies and exceptional crises the Jews welcomed the belief that a\nministry of angels provided a safe means of intercourse between himself\nand the Almighty. Many men have come to feel to-day that the discoveries\nof science have made the universe so infinite and marvellous that its\nMaker and Governor is exalted beyond human approach. The infinite spaces\nof the constellations seem to intervene between the earth and the\npresence-chamber of God; its doors are guarded against prayer and faith by\ninexorable laws; the awful Being, who dwells within, has become\n\u201cunmeasured in height, undistinguished into form.\u201d Intellect and\nimagination alike fail to combine the manifold and terrible attributes of\nthe Author of nature into the picture of a loving Father. It is no new\nexperience, and the present century faces the situation very much as did\nthe chronicler\u2019s contemporaries. Some are happy enough to rest in the\nmediation of ritual priests; others are content to recognise, as of old,\npowers and forces, not now, however, personal messengers of Jehovah, but\nthe physical agencies of \u201cthat which makes for righteousness.\u201d Christ came\nto supersede the Mosaic ritual and the ministry of angels; He will come\nagain to bring those who are far off into renewed fellowship with His\nFather and theirs.\n\nOn the other hand, the recognition of Satan, the evil angel, marks an\nequally great change from the theology of the book of Samuel. The\nprimitive Israelite religion had not yet reached the stage at which the\norigin and existence of moral evil became an urgent problem of religious\nthought; men had not yet realised the logical consequences of the doctrine\nof Divine unity and omnipotence. Not only was material evil traced to\nJehovah as the expression of His just wrath against sin, but \u201cmorally\npernicious acts were quite frankly ascribed to the direct agency of\nGod.\u201d(319) God hardens the heart of Pharaoh and the Canaanites; Saul is\ninstigated by an evil spirit from Jehovah to make an attempt upon the life\nof David; Jehovah moves David to number Israel; He sends forth a lying\nspirit that Ahab\u2019s prophets may prophesy falsely and entice him to his\nruin.(320) The Divine origin of moral evil implied in these passages is\ndefinitely stated in the book of Proverbs: \u201cJehovah hath made everything\nfor its own end, yea even the wicked for the day of evil\u201d; in\nLamentations, \u201cOut of the mouth of the Most High cometh there not evil and\ngood?\u201d and in the book of Isaiah, \u201cI form the light, and create darkness;\nI make peace, and create evil; I am Jehovah, that doeth all these\nthings.\u201d(321)\n\nThe ultra-Calvinism, so to speak, of earlier Israelite religion was only\npossible so long as its full significance was not understood. An emphatic\nassertion of the absolute sovereignty of the one God was necessary as a\nprotest against polytheism, and later on against dualism as well. For\npractical purposes men\u2019s faith needed to be protected by the assurance\nthat God worked out His purposes in and through human wickedness. The\nearlier attitude of the Old Testament towards moral evil had a distinct\npractical and theological value.\n\nBut the conscience of Israel could not always rest in this view of the\norigin of evil. As the standard of morality was raised, and its\nobligations were more fully insisted on, as men shrank from causing evil\nthemselves and from the use of deceit and violence, they hesitated more\nand more to ascribe to Jehovah what they sought to avoid themselves. And\nyet no easy way of escape presented itself. The facts remained; the\ntemptation to do evil was part of the punishment of the sinner and of the\ndiscipline of the saint. It was impossible to deny that sin had its place\nin God\u2019s government of the world; and in view of men\u2019s growing reverence\nand moral sensitiveness, it was becoming almost equally impossible to\nadmit without qualification or explanation that God was Himself the Author\nof evil. Jewish thought found itself face to face with the dilemma against\nwhich the human intellect vainly beats its wings, like a bird against the\nbars of its cage.\n\nHowever, even in the older literature there were suggestions, not indeed\nof a solution of the problem, but of a less objectionable way of stating\nfacts. In Eden the temptation to evil comes from the serpent; and, as the\nstory is told, the serpent is quite independent of God; and the question\nof any Divine authority or permission for its action is not in any way\ndealt with. It is true that the serpent was one of the beasts of the field\nwhich the Lord God had made, but the narrator probably did not consider\nthe question of any Divine responsibility for its wickedness. Again, when\nAhab is enticed to his ruin, Jehovah does not act directly, but through\nthe twofold agency first of the lying spirit and then of the deluded\nprophets. This tendency to dissociate God from any direct agency of evil\nis further illustrated in Job and Zechariah. When Job is to be tried and\ntempted, the actual agent is the malevolent Satan; and the same evil\nspirit stands forth to accuse the high-priest Joshua(322) as the\nrepresentative of Israel. The development of the idea of angelic agency\nafforded new resources for the reverent exposition of the facts connected\nwith the origin and existence of moral evil. If a sense of Divine majesty\nled to a recognition of the angel of Jehovah as the Mediator of\nrevelation, the reverence for Divine holiness imperatively demanded that\nthe immediate causation of evil should also be associated with angelic\nagency. This agent of evil receives the name of Satan, the adversary of\nman, the _advocatus diaboli_ who seeks to discredit man before God, the\nimpeacher of Job\u2019s loyalty and of Joshua\u2019s purity. Yet Jehovah does not\nresign any of His omnipotence. In Job Satan cannot act without God\u2019s\npermission; he is strictly limited by Divine control: all that he does\nonly illustrates Divine wisdom and effects the Divine purpose. In\nZechariah there is no refutation of the charge brought by Satan; its truth\nis virtually admitted: nevertheless Satan is rebuked for his attempt to\nhinder God\u2019s gracious purposes towards His people. Thus later Jewish\nthought left the ultimate Divine sovereignty untouched, but attributed the\nactual and direct causation of moral evil to malign spiritual agency.\n\nTrained in this school, the chronicler must have read with something of a\nshock that Jehovah moved David to commit the sin of numbering Israel. He\nwas familiar with the idea that in such matters Jehovah used or permitted\nthe activity of Satan. Accordingly he carefully avoids reproducing any\nwords from the book of Samuel that imply a direct Divine temptation of\nDavid, and ascribes it to the well-known and crafty animosity of Satan\nagainst Israel. In so doing, he has gone somewhat further than his\npredecessors: he is not careful to emphasise any Divine permission given\nto Satan or Divine control exercised over him. The subsequent narrative\nimplies an overruling for good, and the chronicler may have expected his\nreaders to understand that Satan here stood in the same relation to God as\nin Job and Zechariah; but the abrupt and isolated introduction of Satan to\nbring about the fall of David invests the arch-enemy with a new and more\nindependent dignity.\n\nThe progress of the Jews in moral and spiritual life had given them a\nkeener appreciation both of good and evil, and of the contrast and\nopposition between them. Over against the pictures of the good kings, and\nof the angel of the Lord, the generation of the chronicler set the\ncomplementary pictures of the wicked kings and the evil angel. They had a\nhigher ideal to strive after, a clearer vision of the kingdom of God; they\nalso saw more vividly the depths of Satan and recoiled with horror from\nthe abyss revealed to them.\n\nOur text affords a striking illustration of the tendency to emphasise the\nrecognition of Satan as the instrument of evil and to ignore the question\nof the relation of God to the origin of evil. Possibly no more practical\nattitude can be assumed towards this difficult question. The absolute\nrelation of evil to the Divine sovereignty is one of the problems of the\nultimate nature of God and man. Its discussion may throw many sidelights\nupon other subjects, and will always serve the edifying and necessary\npurpose of teaching men the limitations of their intellectual powers.\nOtherwise theologians have found such controversies barren, and the\naverage Christian has not been able to derive from them any suitable\nnourishment for his spiritual life. Higher intelligences than our own, we\nhave been told,\u2014\n\n\n                              \u201c... reasoned high\n    Of providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate,\n    Fixed fate, free-will, foreknowledge absolute,\n    And found no end, in wandering mazes lost.\u201d\n\n\nOn the other hand, it is supremely important that the believer should\nclearly understand the reality of temptation as an evil spiritual force\nopposed to Divine grace. Sometimes this power of Satan will show itself as\n\u201cthe alien law in his members, warring against the law of his mind and\nbringing him into captivity under the law of sin, which is in his\nmembers.\u201d He will be conscious that \u201che is drawn away by his own lust and\nenticed.\u201d But sometimes temptation will rather come from the outside. A\nman will find his \u201cadversary\u201d in circumstances, in evil companions, in\n\u201cthe sight of means to do ill deeds\u201d; the serpent whispers in his ear, and\nSatan moves him to wrong-doing. Let him not imagine for a moment that he\nis delivered over to the powers of evil; let him realise clearly that with\nevery temptation God provides a way of escape. Every man knows in his own\nconscience that speculative difficulties can neither destroy the sanctity\nof moral obligation nor hinder the operation of the grace of God.\n\nIndeed, the chronicler is at one with the books of Job and Zechariah in\nshowing us the malice of Satan overruled for man\u2019s good and God\u2019s glory.\nIn Job the affliction of the Patriarch only serves to bring out his faith\nand devotion, and is eventually rewarded by renewed and increased\nprosperity; in Zechariah the protest of Satan against God\u2019s gracious\npurposes for Israel is made the occasion of a singular display of God\u2019s\nfavour towards His people and their priest. In Chronicles the malicious\nintervention of Satan leads up to the building of the Temple.\n\nLong ago Jehovah had promised to choose a place in Israel wherein to set\nHis name; but, as the chronicler read in the history of his nation, the\nIsraelites dwelt for centuries in Palestine, and Jehovah made no sign: the\nark of God still dwelt in curtains. Those who still looked for the\nfulfilment of this ancient promise must often have wondered by what\nprophetic utterance or vision Jehovah would make known His choice. Bethel\nhad been consecrated by the vision of Jacob, when he was a solitary\nfugitive from Esau, paying the penalty of his selfish craft; but the\nlessons of past history are not often applied practically, and probably no\none ever expected that Jehovah\u2019s choice of the site for His one temple\nwould be made known to His chosen king, the first true Messiah of Israel,\nin a moment of even deeper humiliation than Jacob\u2019s, or that the Divine\nannouncement would be the climax of a series of events initiated by the\nsuccessful machinations of Satan.\n\nYet herein lies one of the main lessons of the incident. Satan\u2019s\nmachinations are not really successful; he often attains his immediate\nobject, but is always defeated in the end. He estranges David from Jehovah\nfor a moment, but eventually Jehovah and His people are drawn into closer\nunion, and their reconciliation is sealed by the long-expected choice of a\nsite for the Temple. Jehovah is like a great general, who will sometimes\nallow the enemy to obtain a temporary advantage, in order to overwhelm him\nin some crushing defeat. The eternal purpose of God moves onward,\nunresting and unhasting; its quiet and irresistible persistence finds\nspecial opportunity in the hindrances that seem sometimes to check its\nprogress. In David\u2019s case a few months showed the whole process complete:\nthe malice of the Enemy; the sin and punishment of his unhappy victim; the\nDivine relenting and its solemn symbol in the newly consecrated altar. But\nwith the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one\nday; and this brief episode in the history of a small people is a symbol\nalike of the eternal dealings of God in His government of the universe and\nof His personal care for the individual soul. How short-lived has been the\nvictory of sin in many souls! Sin is triumphant; the tempter seems to have\nit all his own way, but his first successes only lead to his final rout;\nthe devil is cast out by the Divine exorcism of chastisement and\nforgiveness; and he learns that his efforts have been made to subserve the\ntraining in the Christian warfare of such warriors as Augustine and John\nBunyan. Or, to take a case more parallel to that of David, Satan catches\nthe saint unawares, and entraps him into sin; and, behold, while the evil\none is in the first flush of triumph, his victim is back again at the\nthrone of grace in an agony of contrition, and before long the repentant\nsinner is bowed down into a new humility at the undeserved graciousness of\nthe Divine pardon: the chains of love are riveted with a fuller constraint\nabout his soul, and he is tenfold more the child of God than before.\n\nAnd in the larger life of the Church and the world Satan\u2019s triumphs are\nstill the heralds of his utter defeat. He prompted the Jews to slay\nStephen; and the Church were scattered abroad, and went about preaching\nthe word; and the young man at whose feet the witnesses laid down their\ngarments became the Apostle of the Gentiles. He tricked the reluctant\nDiocletian into ordering the greatest of the persecutions, and in a few\nyears Christianity was an established religion in the empire. In more\nsecular matters the apparent triumph of an evil principle is usually the\nsignal for its downfall. In America the slave-holders of the Southern\nStates rode rough-shod over the Northerners for more than a generation,\nand then came the Civil War.\n\nThese are not isolated instances, and they serve to warn us against undue\ndepression and despondency when for a season God seems to refrain from any\nintervention with some of the evils of the world. We are apt to ask in our\nimpatience,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cIs there not wrong too bitter for atoning?\n      What are these desperate and hideous years?\n    Hast Thou not heard Thy whole creation groaning,\n      Sighs of the bondsman, and a woman\u2019s tears?\u201d\n\n\nThe works of Satan are as earthly as they are devilish; they belong to the\nworld; which passeth away, with the lust thereof: but the gracious\nprovidence of God has all infinity and all eternity to work in. Where\nto-day we can see nothing but the destroying angel with his flaming sword,\nfuture generations shall behold the temple of the Lord.\n\nDavid\u2019s sin, and penitence, and pardon were no inappropriate preludes to\nthis consecration of Mount Moriah. The Temple was not built for the use of\nblameless saints, but the worship of ordinary men and women. Israel\nthrough countless generations was to bring the burden of its sins to the\naltar of Jehovah. The sacred splendour of Solomon\u2019s dedication festival\nduly represented the national dignity of Israel and the majesty of the God\nof Jacob; but the self-abandonment of David\u2019s repentance, the deliverance\nof Jerusalem from impending pestilence, the Divine pardon of presumptuous\nsin, constituted a still more solemn inauguration of the place where\nJehovah had chosen to set His name. The sinner, seeking the assurance of\npardon in atoning sacrifice, would remember how David had then received\npardon for his sin, and how the acceptance of his offerings had been the\nsignal for the disappearance of the destroying angel. So in the Middle\nAges penitents founded churches to expiate their sins. Such sanctuaries\nwould symbolise to sinners in after-times the possibility of forgiveness;\nthey were monuments of God\u2019s mercy as well as of the founders\u2019 penitence.\nTo-day churches, both in fabric and fellowship, have been made sacred for\nindividual worshippers because in them the Spirit of God has moved them to\nrepentance and bestowed upon them the assurance of pardon. Moreover, this\nsolemn experience consecrates for God His most acceptable temples in the\nsouls of those that love Him.\n\nOne other lesson is suggested by the happy issues of Satan\u2019s malign\ninterference in the history of Israel as understood by the chronicler. The\ninauguration of the new altar was a direct breach of the Levitical law,\nand involved the superseding of the altar and tabernacle that had hitherto\nbeen the only legitimate sanctuary for the worship of Jehovah. Thus the\nnew order had its origin in the violation of existing ordinances and the\nneglect of an ancient sanctuary. Its early history constituted a\ndeclaration of the transient character of sanctuaries and systems of\nritual. God would not eternally limit himself to any building, or His\ngrace to the observance of any forms of external ritual. Long before the\nchronicler\u2019s time Jeremiah had proclaimed this lesson in the ears of\nJudah: \u201cGo ye now unto My place which was in Shiloh, where I caused My\nname to dwell at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of\nMy people Israel.... I will do unto the house which is called by My name,\nwherein ye trust, and unto the place which I gave to you and your fathers,\nas I have done to Shiloh.... I will make this house like Shiloh, and will\nmake this city a curse to all the nations of the earth.\u201d(323) In the\nTabernacle all things were made according to the pattern that was showed\nto Moses in the mount; for the Temple David was made to understand the\npattern of all things \u201cin writing from the hand of Jehovah.\u201d(324) If the\nTabernacle could be set aside for the Temple, the Temple might in its turn\ngive place to the universal Church. If God allowed David in his great need\nto ignore the one legitimate altar of the Tabernacle and to sacrifice\nwithout its officials, the faithful Israelite might be encouraged to\nbelieve that in extreme emergency Jehovah would accept his offering\nwithout regard to place or priest.\n\nThe principles here involved are of very wide application. Every\necclesiastical system was at first a new departure. Even if its highest\nclaims be admitted, they simply assert that within historic times God set\naside some other system previously enjoying the sanction of His authority,\nand substituted for it a more excellent way. The Temple succeeded the\nTabernacle; the synagogue appropriated in a sense part of the authority of\nthe Temple; the Church superseded both synagogue and Temple. God\u2019s action\nin authorising each new departure warrants the expectation that He may yet\nsanction new ecclesiastical systems; the authority which is sufficient to\nestablish is also adequate to supersede. When the Anglican Church broke\naway from the unity of Western Christendom by denying the supremacy of the\nPope and refusing to recognise the orders of other Protestant Churches,\nshe set an example of dissidence that was naturally followed by the\nPresbyterians and Independents. The revolt of the Reformers against the\ntheology of their day in a measure justifies those who have repudiated the\ndogmatic systems of the Reformed Churches. In these and in other ways to\nclaim freedom from authority, even in order to set up a new authority of\none\u2019s own, involves in principle at least the concession to others of a\nsimilar liberty of revolt against one\u2019s self.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XI. Conclusion.\n\n\nIn dealing with the various subjects of this book, we have reserved for\nseparate treatment their relation to the Messianic hopes of the Jews and\nto the realisation of these hopes in Christ. The Messianic teaching of\nChronicles is only complete when we collect and combine the noblest traits\nin its pictures of David and Solomon, of prophets, priests, and kings. We\ncannot ascribe to Chronicles any great influence on the subsequent\ndevelopment of the Jewish idea of the Messiah. In the first place, the\nchronicler does not point out the bearing which his treatment of history\nhas upon the expectation of a future deliverer. He has no formal intention\nof describing the character and office of the Messiah; he merely wishes to\nwrite a history so as to emphasise the facts which most forcibly\nillustrated the sacred mission of Israel. And, in the second place,\nChronicles never exercised any great influence over Jewish thought, and\nnever attained to anything like the popularity of the books of Samuel and\nKings. Many circumstances conspired to prevent the Temple ministry from\nobtaining an undivided authority over later Judaism. The growth of their\npower was broken in upon by the persecutions of Antiochus and the wars of\nthe Maccabees. The ministry of the Temple under the Maccab\u00e6an high-priests\nmust have been very different from that to which the chronicler belonged.\nEven if the priests and Levites still exercised any influence upon\ntheology, they were overshadowed by the growing importance of the\nrabbinical schools of Babylon and Palestine. Moreover, the rise of\nHellenistic Judaism and the translation of the Scriptures into Greek\nintroduced another new and potent factor into the development of the\nJewish religion. Of all the varied forces that were at work few or none\ntended to assign any special authority to Chronicles, nor has it left any\nvery marked traces on later literature. Josephus indeed uses it for his\nhistory, but the New Testament is under very slight obligation to our\nauthor.\n\nBut Chronicles reveals to us the position and tendencies of Jewish thought\nin the interval between Ezra and the Maccabees. The Messiah was expected\nto renew the ancient glories of the chosen people, \u201cto restore the kingdom\nto Israel\u201d; we learn from Chronicles what sort of a kingdom He was to\nrestore. We see the features of the ancient monarchy that were dear to the\nmemories of the Jews, the characters of the prophets, priests, and kings\nwhom they delighted to honour. As their ideas of the past shaped and\ncoloured their hopes for the future, their conception of what was noblest\nand best in the history of the monarchy was at the same time the measure\nof what they expected in the Messiah. However little influence Chronicles\nmay have exerted as a piece of literature, the tendencies of which it is a\nmonument continued to leaven the thought of Israel, and are everywhere\nmanifest in the New Testament.\n\nWe have to bear in mind that Messiah, \u201cAnointed,\u201d was the familiar title\nof the Israelite kings; its use for the priests was late and secondary.\nThe use of a royal title to denote the future Saviour of the nation shows\nus that He was primarily conceived of as an ideal king; and apart from any\nformal enunciation of this conception, the title itself would exercise a\ncontrolling influence upon the development of the Messianic idea.\nAccordingly in the New Testament we find that the Jews were looking for a\nking; and Jesus calls His new society the Kingdom of Heaven.\n\nBut for the chronicler the Messiah, the Anointed of Jehovah, is no mere\nsecular prince. We have seen how the chronicler tends to include religious\nduties and prerogatives among the functions of the king. David and Solomon\nand their pious successors are supreme alike in Church and state as the\nearthly representatives of Jehovah. The actual titles of priest and\nprophet are not bestowed upon the kings, but they are virtually priests in\ntheir care for and control over the buildings and ritual of the Temple,\nand they are prophets when, like David and Solomon, they hold direct\nfellowship with Jehovah and announce His will to the people. Moreover,\nDavid, as \u201cthe Psalmist of Israel,\u201d had become the inspired interpreter of\nthe religious experience of the Jews. The ancient idea of the king as the\nvictorious conqueror was gradually giving place to a more spiritual\nconception of his office; the Messiah was becoming more and more a\ndefinitely religious personage. Thus Chronicles prepared the way for the\nacceptance of Christ as a spiritual Deliverer, who was not only King, but\nalso Priest and Prophet. In fact, we may claim the chronicler\u2019s own\nimplied authority for including in the picture of the coming King the\ncharacteristics he ascribes to the priest and the prophet. Thus the\nMessiah of Chronicles is distinctly more spiritual and less secular than\nthe Messiah of popular Jewish enthusiasm in our Lord\u2019s own time. Whereas\nin the chronicler\u2019s time the tendency was to spiritualise the idea of the\nking, the tenure of the office of high-priest by the Maccab\u00e6an princes\ntended rather to secularise the priesthood and to restore older and cruder\nconceptions of the Messianic King.\n\nLet us see how the chronicler\u2019s history of the house of David illustrates\nthe person and work of the Son of David, who came to restore the ancient\nmonarchy in the spiritual kingdom of which it was the symbol. The Gospels\nintroduce our Lord very much as the chronicler introduces David: they give\nus His genealogy, and pass almost immediately to His public ministry. Of\nHis training and preparation for that ministry, of the chain of earthly\ncircumstances that determined the time and method of His entry upon the\ncareer of a public Teacher, they tell us next to nothing. We are only\nallowed one brief glimpse of the life of the holy Child; our attention is\nmainly directed to the royal Saviour when He has entered upon His kingdom;\nand His Divine nature finds expression in mature manhood, when none of the\nlimitations of childhood detract from the fulness of His redeeming service\nand sacrifice.\n\nThe authority of Christ rests on the same basis as that of the ancient\nkings: it is at once human and Divine. In Christ indeed this twofold\nauthority is in one sense peculiar to Himself; but in the practical\napplication of His authority to the hearts and consciences of men He\ntreads in the footsteps of His ancestors. His kingdom rests on His own\nDivine commission and on the consent of His subjects. God has given Him\nthe right to rule, but He will not reign in any heart till He receives its\nfree submission. And still, as of old, Christ, thus chosen and well\nbeloved of God and man, is King over the whole life of His people, and\nclaims to rule over them in their homes, their business, their recreation,\ntheir social and political life, as well as in their public and private\nworship. If David and his pious successors were devoted to Jehovah and His\ntemple, if they protected their people from foreign foes and wisely\nadministered the affairs of Israel, Christ sets us the example of perfect\nobedience to the Father; He gives us deliverance and victory in our\nwarfare against principalities and powers, against the world rulers of\nthis darkness, and against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly\nplaces; He administers in peace and holiness the inner kingdom of the\nbelieving heart. All that was foreshadowed both by David and Solomon is\nrealised in Christ. The warlike David is a symbol of the holy warfare of\nChrist and the Church militant, of Him who came not to send peace on\nearth, but a sword; Solomon is the symbol of Christ, the Prince of peace\nin the Church triumphant. The tranquillity and splendour of the reign of\nthe first son of David are types of the serene glory of Christ\u2019s kingdom\nas it is partly realised in the hearts of His children and as it will be\nfully realised in heaven; the God-given wisdom of Solomon prefigures the\nperfect knowledge and understanding of Him who is Himself the Word and\nWisdom of God.\n\nThe shadows that darken the history of the kings of Judah and even the\nlife of David himself remind us that the Messiah moved upon a far higher\nmoral and spiritual level than the monarchs whose royal dignity was a type\nof His own. Like David, He was exposed to the machinations of Satan; but,\nunlike David, He successfully resisted the tempter. He was in \u201call points\ntempted like as we are, yet without sin.\u201d\n\nThe great priestly work of David and Solomon was the building of the\nTemple and the organisation of its ritual and ministry. By this work the\nkings made splendid provision for fellowship between Jehovah and His\npeople, and for the system of sacrifices, whereby a sinful nation\nexpressed their penitence and received the assurance of forgiveness. This\nhas been the supreme work of Christ: through Him we have access to God; we\nenter into the holy place, into the Divine presence, by a new and living\nway, that is to say His flesh; He has brought us into the perpetual\nfellowship of the Spirit. And whereas Solomon could only build one temple,\nto which the believer paid occasional visits and obtained the sense of\nDivine fellowship through the ministry of the priests, Christ makes every\nfaithful heart the temple of sacred service, and He has offered for us the\none sacrifice, and provides a universal atonement.\n\nIn His priesthood, as in His sacrifice, He represents us before God, and\nthis representation is not merely technical and symbolic: in Him we find\nourselves brought near to God, and our desires and aspirations are\npresented as petitions at the throne of the heavenly grace. But, on the\nother hand, in His love and righteousness He represents God to us, and\nbrings the assurance of our acceptance.\n\nOther minor features of the office and rights of the priests and Levites\nfind a parallel in Christ. He also is our Teacher and our Judge; to Him\nand to His service all worldly wealth may be consecrated. Christ is in all\nthings the spiritual Heir of the house of Aaron as well as of the house of\nDavid; because He is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, He,\nlike Melchizedek, is also King of Salem; of His kingdom and of His\npriesthood there shall be no end. But while Christ is to the Kingdom of\nHeaven what David was to the Israelite monarchy, while in the different\naspects of His work He is at once Temple, Priest, and Sacrifice, yet in\nthe ministry of His earthly life He is above all a Prophet, the supreme\nsuccessor of Elijah and Isaiah. It was only in a figure that He sat upon\nDavid\u2019s throne; it formed no part of His plan to exercise earthly\ndominion: His kingdom was not of this world. He did not belong to the\npriestly tribe, and performed none of the external acts of priestly\nritual; He did not base His authority upon any genealogy with regard to\npriesthood, as the Epistle to the Hebrews says, \u201cIt is evident that our\nLord hath sprung out of Judah, as to which tribe Moses spake nothing\nconcerning priests.\u201d(325) His royal birth had its symbolic value, but He\nnever asked men to believe in Him because of His human descent from David.\nHe relied as little on the authority of office as on that of birth.\nOfficially He was neither scribe nor rabbi. Like the prophets, His only\nauthority was His Divine commission and the witness of the Spirit in the\nhearts of His hearers. The people recognised Him as a prophet; they took\nHim for Elijah or one of the prophets; He spoke of Himself as a prophet:\n\u201cNot without honour, save in his own country.\u201d We have seen that, while\nthe priests ministered to the regular and recurring needs of the people,\nthe Divine guidance in special emergencies and the Divine authority for\nnew departures were given by the prophets. By a prophet Jehovah brought\nIsrael out of Egypt,(326) and Christ as a Prophet led His people out of\nthe bondage of the Law into the liberty of the Gospel. By Him the Divine\nauthority was given for the greatest religious revolution that the world\nhas ever seen. And still He is the Prophet of the Church. He does not\nmerely provide for the religious wants that are common to every race and\nto every generation: as the circumstances of His Church altar, and the\nbeliever is confronted with fresh difficulties and called upon to\nundertake new tasks, Christ reveals to His people the purpose and counsel\nof God. Even the record of His earthly teaching is constantly found to\nhave anticipated the needs of our own time; His Spirit enables us to\ndiscover fresh applications of the truths He taught: and through Him\nspecial light is sought and granted for the guidance of individuals and of\nthe Church in their need.\n\nBut in Chronicles special stress is laid on the darker aspects of the work\nof the prophets. They constantly appear to administer rebukes and announce\ncoming punishment. Both Christ and His apostles were compelled to assume\nthe same attitude towards Israel. Like Jeremiah, their hearts sank under\nthe burden of so stern a duty. Christ denounced the Pharisees, and wept\nover the city that knew not the things belonging to its peace; He declared\nthe impending ruin of the Temple and the Holy City. Even so His Spirit\nstill rebukes sin, and warns the impenitent of inevitable punishment.\n\nWe have seen also in Chronicles that no stress was laid on any material\nrewards for the prophets, and that their fidelity was sometimes\nrecompensed with persecution and death. Like Christ Himself, they had\nnothing to do with priestly wealth and splendour. The silence of the\nchronicler to the income of these prophets makes them fitting types of Him\nwho had not where to lay His head. A discussion of the income of Christ\nwould almost savour of blasphemy; we should shrink from inquiring how far\n\u201cthose who derived spiritual profit from His teaching gave Him substantial\nproofs of their appreciation of His ministry.\u201d Christ\u2019s recompense at the\nhands of the world and of the Jewish Church was that which former prophets\nhad received. Like Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, He was persecuted and\nslain; He delivered a prophet\u2019s message, and died a prophet\u2019s death.\n\nBut, besides the chronicler\u2019s treatment of the offices of prophet, priest,\nand king, there was another feature of his teaching which would prepare\nthe way for a clear comprehension of the person and work of Christ. We\nhave noticed how the growing sense of the power and majesty of Jehovah\nseemed to set Him at a distance from man, and how the Jews welcomed the\nidea of the mediation of an angelic ministry. And yet the angels were too\nvague and unfamiliar, too little known, and too imperfectly understood to\nsatisfy men\u2019s longing for some means of fellowship between themselves and\nthe remote majesty of an almighty God; while still their ministry served\nto maintain faith in the possibility of mediation, and to quicken the\nyearning after some better way of access to Jehovah. When Christ came He\nfound this faith and yearning waiting to be satisfied; they opened a door\nthrough which Christ found His way into hearts prepared to receive Him. In\nHim the familiar human figures of priest and prophet were exalted into the\nsupernatural dignity of the Angel of Jehovah. Men had long strained their\neyes in vain to a far-off heaven; and, behold, a human voice recalled\ntheir gaze to the earth; and they turned and found God beside them, kindly\nand accessible, a Man with men. They realised the promise that a modern\npoet puts into David\u2019s mouth:\u2014\n\n\n                                  \u201c... O Saul, it shall be\n    A face like my face that receives thee; a Man like to me\n    Thou shalt love and be loved by for ever; a Hand like this hand\n    Shall throw open the gates of new life to thee! See the Christ\n                stand!\u201d\n\n\nWe have thus seen how the figures of the chronicler\u2019s history\u2014prophet,\npriest, king, and angel\u2014were types and foreshadowings of Christ. We may\nsum up this aspect of his teaching by a quotation from a modern exponent\nof Old Testament theology:\u2014\n\n\u201cMoses the prophet is the first type of the Mediator. By his side stands\nAaron the priest, who connects the people with God, and consecrates it....\nBut from the time of David both these figures pale in the imagination of\nthe people before the picture of the Davidic king. His is the figure which\nappears the most indispensable condition of all true happiness for Israel.\nDavid is the third and by far the most perfect type of the\nConsummator.\u201d(327)\n\nThis recurrence to the king as the most perfect type of the Redeemer\nsuggests a last application of the Messianic teaching of the chronicler.\nIn discussing his pictures of the kings, we have ventured to give them a\nmeaning adapted to modern political life. In Israel the king stood for the\nstate. When a community combined for common action to erect a temple or\nrepel an invader, the united force was controlled and directed by the\nking; he was the symbol of national union and co-operation. To-day, when a\ncommunity acts as a whole, its agent and instrument is the civil\ngovernment; the state is the people organised for the common good,\nsubordinating individual ends to the welfare of the whole nation. Where\nthe Old Testament has \u201cking,\u201d its modern equivalent may read the state or\nthe civil government,\u2014nay, even for special purposes the municipality, the\ncounty council, or the school board. Shall we obtain any helpful or even\nintelligible result if we apply this method of translation to the doctrine\nof the Messiah? Externally at any rate the translation bears a startling\nlikeness to what has been regarded as a specially modern development.\n\u201cIsrael looked for salvation from the king,\u201d would read, \u201cModern society\nshould seek salvation from the state.\u201d Assuredly there are many prophets\nwho have taken up this burden without any idea that their new heresy was\nonly a reproduction of old and forgotten orthodoxy. But the history of the\ngrowth of the Messianic idea supplies a correction to the primitive\nbaldness of this principle of salvation by the state. In time the picture\nof the Messianic king came to include the attributes of the prophet and\nthe priest. If we care to complete our modern application, we must affirm\nthat the state can never be a saviour till it becomes sensitive to Divine\ninfluences and conscious of a Divine presence.\n\nWhen we see how the Messianic hope of Israel was purified and ennobled to\nreceive a fulfilment glorious beyond its wildest dreams, we are encouraged\nto believe that the fantastic visions of the Socialist may be divinely\nguided to some reasonable ideal and may prepare the way for some further\nmanifestation of the grace of God. But the Messianic state, like the\nMessiah, may be called upon to suffer and die for the salvation of the\nworld, that it may receive a better resurrection.\n\n\n\n\n\nBOOK IV. THE INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I. The Last Prayer Of David. 1 Chron. xxix. 10-19.\n\n\nIn order to do justice to the chronicler\u2019s method of presenting us with a\nnumber of very similar illustrations of the same principle, we have in the\nprevious book grouped much of his material under a few leading subjects.\nThere remains the general thread of the history, which is, of course, very\nmuch the same in Chronicles as in the book of Kings, and need not be dwelt\non at any length. At the same time some brief survey is necessary for the\nsake of completeness and in order to bring out the different complexion\ngiven to the history by the chronicler\u2019s alterations and omissions.\nMoreover, there are a number of minor points that are most conveniently\ndealt with in the course of a running exposition.\n\nThe special importance attached by the chronicler to David and Solomon has\nenabled us to treat their reigns at length in discussing his picture of\nthe ideal king; and similarly the reign of Ahaz has served as an\nillustration of the character and fortunes of the wicked kings. We\ntherefore take up the history at the accession of Rehoboam, and shall\nsimply indicate very briefly the connection of the reign of Ahaz with what\nprecedes and follows. But before passing on to Rehoboam we must consider\n\u201cThe Last Prayer of David,\u201d a devotional paragraph peculiar to Chronicles.\nThe detailed exposition of this passage would have been out of proportion\nin a brief sketch of the chronicler\u2019s account of the character and reign\nof David, and would have had no special bearing on the subject of the\nideal king. On the other hand, the \u201cPrayer\u201d states some of the leading\nprinciples which govern the chronicler in his interpretation of the\nhistory of Israel; and its exposition forms a suitable introduction to the\npresent division of our subject.\n\nThe occasion of this prayer was the great closing scene of David\u2019s life,\nwhich we have already described. The prayer is a thanksgiving for the\nassurance David had received that the accomplishment of the great purpose\nof his life, the erection of a temple to Jehovah, was virtually secured.\nHe had been permitted to collect the materials for the building, he had\nreceived the plans of the Temple from Jehovah, and had placed them in the\nwilling hands of his successor. The princes and the people had caught his\nown enthusiasm and lavishly supplemented the bountiful provision already\nmade for the future work. Solomon had been accepted as king by popular\nacclamation. Every possible preparation had been made that could be made,\nand the aged king poured out his heart in praise to God for His grace and\nfavour.\n\nThe prayer falls naturally into four subdivisions: vv. 10-13 are a kind of\ndoxology in honour of Jehovah; in vv. 14-16 David acknowledges that Israel\nis entirely dependent upon Jehovah for the means of rendering Him\nacceptable service; in ver. 17 he claims that he and his people have\noffered willingly unto Jehovah; and in vv. 18 and 19 he prays that Solomon\nand the people may build the Temple and abide in the Law.\n\nIn the doxology God is addressed as \u201cJehovah, the God of Israel, our\nFather,\u201d and similarly in ver. 18 as \u201cJehovah, the God of Abraham, of\nIsaac, and of Israel.\u201d For the chronicler the accession of David is the\nstarting-point of Israelite history and religion, but here, as in the\ngenealogies, he links his narrative to that of the Pentateuch, and reminds\nhis readers that the crowning dispensation of the worship of Jehovah in\nthe Temple rested on the earlier revelations to Abraham, Isaac, and\nIsrael.\n\nWe are at once struck by the divergence from the usual formula: \u201cAbraham,\nIsaac, and Jacob.\u201d Moreover, when God is referred to as the God of the\nPatriarch personally, the usual phrase is \u201cthe God of Jacob.\u201d The formula,\n\u201cGod of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel,\u201d occurs again in Chronicles in the\naccount of Hezekiah\u2019s reformation; it only occurs elsewhere in the history\nof Elijah in the book of Kings.(328) The chronicler avoids the use of the\nname \u201cJacob,\u201d and for the most part calls the Patriarch \u201cIsrael.\u201d \u201cJacob\u201d\nonly occurs in two poetic quotations, where its omission was almost\nimpossible, because in each case \u201cIsrael\u201d is used in the parallel\nclause.(329) This choice of names is an application of the same principle\nthat led to the omission of the discreditable incidents in the history of\nDavid and Solomon. Jacob was the supplanter. The name suggested the\nunbrotherly craft of the Patriarch. It was not desirable that the Jews\nshould be encouraged to think of Jehovah as the God of a grasping and\ndeceitful man. Jehovah was the God of the Patriarch\u2019s nobler nature and\nhigher life, the God of Israel, who strove with God and prevailed.\n\nIn the doxology that follows the resources of language are almost\nexhausted in the attempt to set forth adequately \u201cthe greatness, and the\npower, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty, ... the riches and\nhonour, ... the power and might,\u201d of Jehovah. These verses read like an\nexpansion of the simple Christian doxology, \u201cThine is the kingdom, the\npower, and the glory,\u201d but in all probability the latter is an\nabbreviation from our text. In both there is the same recognition of the\nruling omnipotence of God; but the chronicler, having in mind the glory\nand power of David and his magnificent offerings for the building of the\nTemple, is specially careful to intimate that Jehovah is the source of all\nworldly greatness: \u201cBoth riches and honour come of Thee, ... and in Thy\nhand it is to make great and to give strength unto all.\u201d\n\nThe complementary truth, the entire dependence of Israel on Jehovah, is\ndealt with in the next verses. David has learnt humility from the tragic\nconsequences of his fatal census; his heart is no longer uplifted with\npride at the wealth and glory of his kingdom; he claims no credit for the\nspontaneous impulse of generosity that prompted his munificence.\nEverything is traced back to Jehovah: \u201cAll things come of Thee, and of\nThine own have we given Thee.\u201d Before, when David contemplated the vast\npopulation of Israel and the great array of his warriors, the sense of\nGod\u2019s displeasure fell upon him; now, when the riches and honour of his\nkingdom were displayed before him, he may have felt the chastening\ninfluence of his former experience. A touch of melancholy darkened his\nspirit for a moment; standing upon the brink of the dim, mysterious Sheol,\nhe found small comfort in barbaric abundance of timber and stone, jewels,\ntalents, and darics; he saw the emptiness of all earthly splendour. Like\nAbraham before the children of Heth, he stood before Jehovah a stranger\nand a sojourner.(330) Bildad the Shuhite had urged Job to submit himself\nto the teaching of a venerable orthodoxy, because \u201cwe are of yesterday and\nknow nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow.\u201d(331) The same\nthought made David feel his insignificance, in spite of his wealth and\nroyal dominion: \u201cOur days on the earth are as a shadow, and there no\nabiding.\u201d\n\nHe turns from these sombre thoughts to the consoling reflection that in\nall his preparations he has been the instrument of a Divine purpose, and\nhas served Jehovah willingly. To-day he can approach God with a clear\nconscience: \u201cI know also, my God, that Thou triest the heart and hast\npleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of my heart I have\nwillingly offered all these things.\u201d He rejoiced, moreover, that the\npeople had offered willingly. The chronicler anticipates the teaching of\nSt. Paul that \u201cthe Lord loveth a cheerful giver.\u201d David gives of his\nabundance in the same spirit in which the widow gave her mite. The two\nnarratives are mutually supplementary. It is possible to apply the story\nof the widow\u2019s mite so as to suggest that God values our offerings in\ninverse proportion to their amount. We are reminded by the willing\nmunificence of David that the rich may give of his abundance as simply and\nhumbly and as acceptably as the poor man gives of his poverty.\n\nBut however grateful David might be for the pious and generous spirit by\nwhich his people were now possessed, he did not forget that they could\nonly abide in that spirit by the continued enjoyment of Divine help and\ngrace. His thanksgiving concludes with prayer. Spiritual depression is apt\nto follow very speedily in the train of spiritual exaltation; days of joy\nand light are granted to us that we may make provision for future\nnecessity.\n\nDavid does not merely ask that Israel may be kept in external obedience\nand devotion: his prayer goes deeper. He knows that out of the heart are\nthe issues of life, and he prays that the heart of Solomon and the\nthoughts of the heart of the people may be kept right with God. Unless the\nfountain of life were pure, it would be useless to cleanse the stream.\nDavid\u2019s special desire is that the Temple may be built, but this desire is\nonly the expression of his loyalty to the Law. Without the Temple the\ncommandments, and testimonies, and statutes of the Law could not be\nrightly observed. But he does not ask that the people may be constrained\nto build the Temple and keeping the Law in order that their hearts may be\nmade perfect; their hearts are to be made perfect that they may keep the\nLaw.\n\nHenceforward throughout his history the chronicler\u2019s criterion of a\nperfect heart, a righteous life, in king and people, is their attitude\ntowards the Law and the Temple. Because their ordinances and worship\nformed the accepted standard of religion and morality, through which men\u2019s\ngoodness would naturally express themselves. Similarly only under a\nsupreme sense of duty to God and man may the Christian willingly violate\nthe established canons of religious and social life.\n\nWe may conclude by noticing a curious feature in the wording of David\u2019s\nprayer. In the nineteenth, as in the first, verse of this chapter the\nTemple, according to our English versions, is referred to as \u201cthe palace.\u201d\nThe original word _b\u00eer\u00e2_ is probably Persian, though a parallel form is\nquoted from the Assyrian. As a Hebrew word it belongs to the latest and\nmost corrupt stage of the language as found in the Old Testament; and only\noccurs in Chronicles, Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel. In putting this word\ninto the mouth of David, the chronicler is guilty of an anachronism,\nparallel to his use of the word \u201cdarics.\u201d The word _b\u00eer\u00e2_ appears to have\nfirst become familiar to the Jews as the name of a Persian palace or\nfortress in Susa; it is used in Nehemiah of the castle attached to the\nTemple, and in later times the derivative Greek name _Baris_ had the same\nmeaning. It is curious to find the chronicler, in his effort to find a\nsufficiently dignified title for the temple of Jehovah, driven to borrow a\nword which belonged originally to the royal magnificence of a heathen\nempire, and which was used later on to denote the fortress whence a Roman\ngarrison controlled the fanaticism of Jewish worship.(332) The\nchronicler\u2019s intention, no doubt, was to intimate that the dignity of the\nTemple surpassed that of any royal palace. He could not suppose that it\nwas greater in extent or constructed of more costly materials; the living\npresence of Jehovah was its one supreme and unique distinction. The King\ngave honour to His dwelling-place.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II. Rehoboam And Abijah: The Importance Of Ritual. 2 Chron.\nx.-xiii.\n\n\nThe transition from Solomon to Rehoboam brings to light a serious drawback\nof the chronicler\u2019s principle of selection. In the history of Solomon we\nread of nothing but wealth, splendour, unchallenged dominion, and\nsuperhuman wisdom; and yet the breath is hardly out of the body of the\nwisest and greatest king of Israel before his empire falls to pieces. We\nare told, as in the book of Kings, that the people met Rehoboam with a\ndemand for release from \u201cthe grievous service of thy father,\u201d and yet we\nwere expressly told only two chapters before that \u201cof the children of\nIsrael did Solomon make no servants for his work; but they were men of\nwar, and chief of his captains, and rulers of his chariots and of his\nhorsemen.\u201d(333) Rehoboam apparently had been left by the wisdom of his\nfather to the companionship of head-strong and featherbrained youths; he\nfollowed their advice rather than that of Solomon\u2019s grey-headed\ncounsellors, with the result that the ten tribes successfully revolted and\nchose Jeroboam for their king. Rehoboam assembled an army to reconquer his\nlost territory, but Jehovah through the prophet Shemaiah forbade him to\nmake war against Jeroboam.\n\nThe chronicler here and elsewhere shows his anxiety not to perplex simple\nminds with unnecessary difficulties. They might be harassed and disturbed\nby the discovery that the king, who built the Temple and was specially\nendowed with Divine wisdom, had fallen into grievous sin and been visited\nwith condign punishment. Accordingly everything that discredits Solomon\nand detracts from his glory is omitted. The general principle is sound; an\nearnest teacher, alive to his responsibility, will not wantonly obtrude\ndifficulties upon his hearers; when silence does not involve disloyalty to\ntruth, he will be willing that they should remain in ignorance of some of\nthe more mysterious dealings of God in nature and history. But silence was\nmore possible and less dangerous in the chronicler\u2019s time than in the\nnineteenth century. He could count upon a docile and submissive spirit in\nhis readers; they would not inquire beyond what they were told: they would\nnot discover the difficulties for themselves. Jewish youths were not\nexposed to the attacks of eager and militant sceptics, who would force\nthese difficulties upon their notice in an exaggerated form, and at once\ndemand that they should cease to believe in anything human or Divine.\n\nAnd yet, though the chronicler had great advantages in this matter, his\nown narrative illustrates the narrow limits within which the principle of\nthe suppression of difficulties can be safely applied. His silence as to\nSolomon\u2019s sins and misfortunes makes the revolt of the ten tribes utterly\ninexplicable. After the account of the perfect wisdom, peace, and\nprosperity of Solomon\u2019s reign, the revolt comes upon an intelligent reader\nwith a shock of surprise and almost of incredulity. If he could not test\nthe chronicler\u2019s narrative by that of the book of Kings\u2014and it was no part\nof the chronicler\u2019s purpose that his history should be thus tested\u2014the\nviolent transition from Solomon\u2019s unbroken prosperity to the catastrophe\nof the disruption would leave the reader quite uncertain as to the general\ncredibility of Chronicles. In avoiding Scylla, our author has fallen into\nCharybdis; he has suppressed one set of difficulties only to create\nothers. If we wish to help intelligent inquirers and to aid them to form\nan independent judgment, our safest plan will often be to tell them all we\nknow ourselves and to believe that difficulties, which in no way mar our\nspiritual life, will not destroy their faith.\n\nIn the next section(334) the chronicler tells how for three years Rehoboam\nadministered his diminished kingdom with wisdom and success; he and his\npeople walked in the way of David and Solomon, and his kingdom was\nestablished, and he was strong. He fortified fifteen cities in Judah and\nBenjamin, and put captains in them, and store of victuals, and oil and\nwine, and shields and spears, and made them exceeding strong. Rehoboam was\nfurther strengthened by deserters from the northern kingdom. Though the\nPentateuch and the book of Joshua assigned to the priests and Levites\ncities in the territory held by Jeroboam, yet their intimate association\nwith the Temple rendered it impossible for them to remain citizens of a\nstate hostile to Jerusalem. The chronicler indeed tells us that \u201cJeroboam\nand his sons cast them off, that they should not execute the priest\u2019s\noffice unto Jehovah, and appointed others to be priests for the high\nplaces and the he-goats and for the calves which he had.\u201d It is difficult\nto understand what the chronicler means by this statement. On the face of\nit, we should suppose that Jeroboam refused to employ the house of Aaron\nand the tribe of Levi for the worship of his he-goats and calves, but the\nchronicler could not describe such action as casting \u201cthem off that they\nshould not execute the priest\u2019s office unto Jehovah.\u201d The passage has been\nexplained to mean that Jeroboam sought to hinder them from exercising\ntheir functions at the Temple by preventing them from visiting Judah; but\nto confine the priests and Levites to his own kingdom would have been a\nstrange way of casting them off. However, whether driven out by Jeroboam\nor escaping from him, they came to Jerusalem and brought with them from\namong the ten tribes other pious Israelites, who were attached to the\nworship of the Temple. Judah and Jerusalem became the home of all true\nworshippers of Jehovah; and those who remained in the northern kingdom\nwere given up to idolatry or the degenerate and corrupt worship of the\nhigh places. The chronicler then gives us some account of Rehoboam\u2019s harem\nand children, and tells that he dealt wisely, and dispersed his\ntwenty-eight sons \u201cthroughout all the lands of Judah and Benjamin, unto\nevery fenced city.\u201d He gave them the means of maintaining a luxurious\ntable, and provided them with numerous wives, and trusted that, being thus\nhappily circumstanced, they would lack leisure, energy, and ambition to\nimitate Absalom and Adonijah.\n\nProsperity and security turned the head of Rehoboam as they had done that\nof David: \u201cHe forsook the law of Jehovah, and all Israel with him.\u201d \u201cAll\nIsrael\u201d means all the subjects of Rehoboam; the chronicler treats the ten\ntribes as cut off from Israel. The faithful worshippers of Jehovah in\nJudah had been reinforced by the priests, Levites, and all other pious\nIsraelites from the northern kingdom; and yet in three years they forsook\nthe cause for which they had left their country and their fathers house.\nPunishment was not long delayed, for Shishak, king of Egypt, invaded Judah\nwith an immense host and took away the treasures of the house of Jehovah\nand of the king\u2019s house.\n\nThe chronicler explains why Rehoboam was not more severely punished.(335)\nShishak appeared before Jerusalem with his immense host: Ethiopians, Lubim\nor Lybians, and Sukiim, a mysterious people only mentioned here. The LXX.\nand Vulgate translate Sukiim \u201cTroglodytes,\u201d apparently identifying them\nwith the cave-dwellers on the western or Ethiopian coast of the Red Sea.\nIn order to find safety from these strange and barbarous enemies, Rehoboam\nand his princes were gathered together in Jerusalem. Shemaiah the prophet\nappeared before them, and declared that the invasion was Jehovah\u2019s\npunishment for their sin, whereupon they humbled themselves, and Jehovah\naccepted their penitent submission. He would not destroy Jerusalem, but\nthe Jews should serve Shishak, \u201cthat they may know My service and the\nservice of the kingdoms of the countries.\u201d When they threw off the yoke of\nJehovah, they sold themselves into a worse bondage. There is no freedom to\nbe gained by repudiating the restraints of morality and religion. If we do\nnot choose to be the servants of obedience unto righteousness, our only\nalternative is to become the slaves \u201cof sin unto death.\u201d The repentant\nsinner may return to his true allegiance, and yet he may still be allowed\nto taste something of the bitterness and humiliation of the bondage of\nsin. His Shishak may be some evil habit or propensity or special liability\nto temptation, that is permitted to harass him without destroying his\nspiritual life. In time the chastening of the Lord works out the peaceable\nfruits of righteousness, and the Christian is weaned for ever from the\nunprofitable service of sin.\n\nUnhappily the repentance inspired by trouble and distress is not always\nreal and permanent. Many will humble themselves before the Lord in order\nto avert imminent ruin, and will forsake Him when the danger has passed\naway. Apparently Rehoboam soon fell away again into sin, for the final\njudgment upon him is, \u201cHe did that which was evil, because he set not his\nheart to seek Jehovah.\u201d(336) David in his last prayer had asked for a\n\u201cperfect heart\u201d for Solomon, but he had not been able to secure this\nblessing for his grandson, and Rehoboam was \u201cthe foolishness of the\npeople, one that had no understanding, who turned away the people through\nhis counsel.\u201d(337)\n\nRehoboam was succeeded by his son Abijah, concerning whom we are told in\nthe book of Kings that \u201che walked in all the sins of his father, which he\nhad done before him; and his heart was not perfect with Jehovah his God,\nas the heart of David his father.\u201d The chronicler omits this unfavourable\nverdict; he does not indeed classify Abijah among the good kings by the\nusual formal statement that \u201che did that which was good and right in the\neyes of Jehovah,\u201d but Abijah delivers a hortatory speech and by Divine\nassistance obtains a great victory over Jeroboam. There is not a\nsuggestion of any evil-doing on the part of Abijah; and yet we gather from\nthe history of Asa that in Abijah\u2019s reign the cities of Judah were given\nup to idolatry, with all its paraphernalia of \u201cstrange altars, high\nplaces, Asherim, and sun-images.\u201d As in the case of Solomon, so here, the\nchronicler has sacrificed even the consistency of his own narrative to his\ncare for the reputation of the house of David. How the verdict of ancient\nhistory upon Abijah came to be set aside we do not know. The charitable\nwork of whitewashing the bad characters of history has always had an\nattraction for enterprising annalists; and Abijah was a more promising\nsubject than Nero, Tiberius, or Henry VIII. The chronicler would rejoice\nto discover one more good king of Judah; but yet why should the record of\nAbijah\u2019s sins be expunged, while Ahaziah and Amon were still held up to\nthe execration of posterity? Probably the chronicler was anxious that\nnothing should mar the effect of his narrative of Abijah\u2019s victory. If his\nlater sources had recorded anything equally creditable of Ahaziah and\nAmon, he might have ignored the judgment of the book of Kings in their\ncase also.\n\nThe section(338) to which the chronicler attaches so much importance\ndescribes a striking episode in the chronic warfare between Judah and\nIsrael. Here Israel is used, as in the older history, to mean the northern\nkingdom, and does not denote the spiritual Israel\u2014_i.e._, Judah\u2014as in the\nprevious chapter. This perplexing variation in the use of the term\n\u201cIsrael\u201d shows how far Chronicles has departed from the religious ideas of\nthe book of Kings, and reminds us that the chronicler has only partially\nand imperfectly assimilated his older material.\n\nAbijah and Jeroboam had each gathered an immense army, but the army of\nIsrael was twice as large as that of Judah: Jeroboam had eight hundred\nthousand to Abijah\u2019s four hundred thousand. Jeroboam advanced, confident\nin his overwhelming superiority and happy in the belief that Providence\nsides with the strongest battalions. Abijah, however, was nothing dismayed\nby the odds against him; his confidence was in Jehovah. The two armies met\nin the neighbourhood of Mount Zemaraim, upon which Abijah fixed his camp.\nMount Zemaraim was in the hill-country of Ephraim, but its position cannot\nbe determined with certainty; it was probably near the border of the two\nkingdoms. Possibly it was the site of the Benjamite city of the same name\nmentioned in the book of Joshua in close connection with Bethel.(339) If\nso, we should look for it in the neighbourhood of Bethel, a position which\nwould suit the few indications of place given by the narrative.\n\nBefore the battle, Abijah made an effort to induce his enemies to depart\nin peace. From the vantage-ground of his mountain camp he addressed\nJeroboam and his army as Jotham had addressed the men of Shechem from\nMount Gerizim.(340) Abijah reminded the rebels\u2014for as such he regarded\nthem\u2014that Jehovah, the God of Israel, had given the kingdom over Israel to\nDavid for ever, even to him and to his sons, by a covenant of salt, by a\ncharter as solemn and unalterable as that by which the heave-offerings had\nbeen given to the sons of Aaron.(341) The obligation of an Arab host to\nthe guest who had sat at meat with him and eaten of his salt was not more\nbinding than the Divine decree which had given the throne of Israel to the\nhouse of David. And yet Jeroboam the son of Nebat had dared to infringe\nthe sacred rights of the elect dynasty. He, the slave of Solomon, had\nrisen up and rebelled against his master.\n\nThe indignant prince of the house of David not unnaturally forgets that\nthe disruption was Jehovah\u2019s own work, and that Jeroboam rose up against\nhis master, not at the instigation of Satan, but by the command of the\nprophet Ahijah.(342) The advocates of sacred causes even in inspired\nmoments are apt to be one-sided in their statements of fact.\n\nWhile Abijah is severe upon Jeroboam and his accomplices and calls them\n\u201cvain men, sons of Belial,\u201d he shows a filial tenderness for the memory of\nRehoboam. That unfortunate king had been taken at a disadvantage, when he\nwas young and tender-hearted and unable to deal sternly with rebels. The\ntenderness which could threaten to chastise his people with scorpions must\nhave been of the kind\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThat dared to look on torture and could not look on war\u201d;\n\n\nit only appears in the history in Rehoboam\u2019s headlong flight to Jerusalem.\nNo one, however, will censure Abijah for taking an unduly favourable view\nof his father\u2019s character.\n\nBut whatever advantage Jeroboam may have found in his first revolt, Abijah\nwarns him that now he need not think to withstand the kingdom of Jehovah\nin the hands of the sons of David. He is no longer opposed to an\nunseasoned youth, but to men who know their overwhelming advantage.\nJeroboam need not think to supplement and complete his former achievements\nby adding Judah and Benjamin to his kingdom. Against his superiority of\nfour hundred thousand soldiers Abijah can set a Divine alliance, attested\nby the presence of priests and Levites and the regular performance of the\npentateuchal ritual, whilst the alienation of Israel from Jehovah is\nclearly shown by the irregular orders of their priests. But let Abijah\nspeak for himself: \u201cYe be a great multitude, and there are with you the\ngolden calves which Jeroboam made you for gods.\u201d Possibly Abijah was able\nto point to Bethel, where the royal sanctuary of the golden calf was\nvisible to both armies: \u201cHave ye not driven out the priests of Jehovah,\nthe sons of Aaron and the Levites, and made for yourselves priests in\nheathen fashion? When any one comes to consecrate himself with a young\nbullock and seven rams, ye make him a priest of them that are no gods. But\nas for us, Jehovah is our God, and we have not forsaken Him; and we have\npriests, the sons of Aaron, ministering unto Jehovah, and the Levites,\ndoing their appointed work: and they burn unto Jehovah morning and evening\nburnt offerings and sweet incense: the shewbread also they set in order\nupon the table that is kept free from all uncleanness; and we have the\ncandlestick of gold, with its lamps, to burn every evening; for we observe\nthe ordinances of Jehovah our God; but ye have forsaken Him. And, behold,\nGod is with us at our head, and His priests, with the trumpets of alarm,\nto sound an alarm against you. O children of Israel, fight ye not against\nJehovah, the God of your fathers; for ye shall not prosper.\u201d\n\nThis speech, we are told, \u201chas been much admired. It was well suited to\nits object, and exhibits correct notions of the theocratical\ninstitutions.\u201d But, like much other admirable eloquence, in the House of\nCommons and elsewhere, Abijah\u2019s speech had no effect upon those to whom it\nwas addressed. Jeroboam apparently utilised the interval to plant an\nambush in the rear of the Jewish army.\n\nAbijah\u2019s speech is unique. There have been other instances in which\ncommanders have tried to make oratory take the place of arms, and, like\nAbijah, they have mostly been unsuccessful; but they have usually appealed\nto lower motives. Sennacherib\u2019s envoys tried ineffectually to seduce the\ngarrison of Jerusalem from their allegiance to Hezekiah, but they relied\non threats of destruction and promises of \u201ca land of corn and wine, a land\nof bread and vineyards, a land of oil olive and honey.\u201d There is, however,\na parallel instance of more successful persuasion. When Octavian was at\nwar with his fellow-triumvir Lepidus, he made a daring attempt to win over\nhis enemy\u2019s army. He did not address them from the safe elevation of a\nneighbouring mountain, but rode openly into the hostile camp. He appealed\nto the soldiers by motives as lofty as those urged by Abijah, and called\nupon them to save their country from civil war by deserting Lepidus. At\nthe moment his appeal failed, and he only escaped with a wound in his\nbreast; but after a while his enemy\u2019s soldiers came over to him in\ndetachments, and eventually Lepidus was compelled to surrender to his\nrival. But the deserters were not altogether influenced by pure\npatriotism. Octavian had carefully prepared the way for his dramatic\nappearance in the camp of Lepidus, and had used grosser means of\npersuasion than arguments addressed to patriotic feeling.\n\nAnother instance of a successful appeal to a hostile force is found in the\nhistory of the first Napoleon, when he was marching on Paris after his\nreturn from Elba. Near Grenoble he was met by a body of royal troops. He\nat once advanced to the front, and exposing his breast, exclaimed to the\nopposing ranks, \u201cHere is your emperor; if any one would kill me, let him\nfire.\u201d The detachment, which had been sent to arrest his progress, at once\ndeserted to their old commander. Abijah\u2019s task was less hopeful: the\nsoldiers whom Octavian and Napoleon won over had known these generals as\nlawful commanders of Roman and French armies respectively, but Abijah\ncould not appeal to any old associations in the minds of Jeroboam\u2019s army;\nthe Israelites were animated by ancient tribal jealousies, and Jeroboam\nwas made of sterner stuff than Lepidus or Louis XVIII. Abijah\u2019s appeal is\na monument of his humanity, faith, and devotion; and if it failed to\ninfluence the enemy, doubtless served to inspirit his own army.\n\nAt first, however, things went hardly with Judah. They were outgeneralled\nas well as outnumbered; Jeroboam\u2019s main body attacked them in front, and\nthe ambush assailed their rear. Like the men of Ai, \u201cwhen Judah looked\nback, behold, the battle was before and behind them.\u201d But Jehovah, who\nfought against Ai, was fighting for Judah, and they cried unto Jehovah;\nand then, as at Jericho, \u201cthe men of Judah gave a shout, and when they\nshouted, God smote Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah.\u201d The\nrout was complete, and was accompanied by terrible slaughter. No fewer\nthan five hundred thousand Israelites were slain by the men of Judah. The\nlatter pressed their advantage, and took the neighbouring city of Bethel\nand other Israelite towns. For the time Israel was \u201cbrought under,\u201d and\ndid not recover from its tremendous losses during the three years of\nAbijah\u2019s reign. As for Jeroboam, Jehovah smote him, and he died; but\n\u201cAbijah waxed mighty, and took unto himself fourteen wives, and begat\ntwenty-and-two sons and sixteen daughters.\u201d(343) His history closes with\nthe record of these proofs of Divine favour, and he \u201cslept with his\nfathers, and they buried him in the city of David, and Asa his son reigned\nin his stead.\u201d\n\nThe lesson which the chronicler intends to teach by his narrative is\nobviously the importance of ritual, not the importance of ritual apart\nfrom the worship of the true God; he emphasises the presence of Jehovah\nwith Judah, in contrast to the Israelite worship of calves and those that\nare no gods. The chronicler dwells upon the maintenance of the legitimate\npriesthood and the prescribed ritual as the natural expression and clear\nproof of the devotion of the men of Judah to their God.\n\nIt may help us to realise the significance of Abijah\u2019s speech, if we try\nto construct an appeal in the same spirit for a Catholic general in the\nThirty Years\u2019 War addressing a hostile Protestant army. Imagine\nWallenstein or Tilly, moved by some unwonted spirit of pious oratory,\naddressing the soldiers of Gustavus Adolphus:\u2014\n\n\u201cWe have a pope who sits in Peter\u2019s chair, bishops and priests ministering\nunto the Lord, in the true apostolical succession. The sacrifice of the\nMass is daily offered; matins, laud, vespers, and compline are all duly\ncelebrated; our churches are fragrant with incense and glorious with\nstained glass and images; we have crucifixes, and lamps, and candles; and\nour priests are fitly clothed in ecclesiastical vestments; for we observe\nthe traditions of the Church, but ye have forsaken the Divine order.\nBehold, God is with us at our head; and we have banners blessed by the\nPope. O ye Swedes, ye fight against God; ye shall not prosper.\u201d\n\nAs Protestants we may find it difficult to sympathise with the feelings of\na devout Romanist or even with those of a faithful observer of the\ncomplicated Mosaic ritual. We could not construct so close a parallel to\nAbijah\u2019s speech in terms of any Protestant order of service, and yet the\nobjections which any modern denomination feels to departures from its own\nforms of worship rest on the same principles as those of Abijah. In the\nabstract the speech teaches two main lessons: the importance of an\nofficial and duly accredited ministry and of a suitable and authoritative\nritual. These principles are perfectly general, and are not confined to\nwhat is usually known as sacerdotalism and ritualism. Every Church has in\npractice some official ministry, even those Churches that profess to owe\ntheir separate existence to the necessity for protesting against an\nofficial ministry. Men whose chief occupation is to denounce priestcraft\nmay themselves be saturated with the sacerdotal spirit. Every Church, too,\nhas its ritual. The silence of a Friends\u2019 meeting is as much a rite as the\nmost elaborate genuflexion before a highly ornamented altar. To regard\neither the absence or presence of rites as essential is equally\nritualistic. The man who leaves his wonted place of worship because \u201cAmen\u201d\nis sung at the end of a hymn is as bigoted a ritualist as his brother who\ndare not pass an altar without crossing himself. Let us then consider the\nchronicler\u2019s two principles in this broad sense. The official ministry of\nIsrael consisted of the priests and Levites, and the chronicler counted it\na proof of the piety of the Jews that they adhered to this ministry and\ndid not admit to the priesthood any one who could bring a young bullock\nand seven rams. The alternative was not between a hereditary priesthood\nand one open to any aspirant with special spiritual qualifications, but\nbetween a duly trained and qualified ministry on the one hand and a motley\ncrew of the forerunners of Simon Magus on the other. It is impossible not\nto sympathise with the chronicler. To begin with, the property\nqualification was too low. If livings are to be purchased at all, they\nshould bear a price commensurate with the dignity and responsibility of\nthe sacred office. A mere entrance fee, so to speak, of a young bullock\nand seven rams must have flooded Jeroboam\u2019s priesthood with a host of\nadventurers, to whom the assumption of the office was a matter of social\nor commercial speculation. The private adventure system of providing for\nthe ministry of the word scarcely tends to either the dignity or the\nefficiency of the Church. But, in any case, it is not desirable that mere\nworldly gifts, money, social position, or even intellect should be made\nthe sole passports to Christian service; even the traditions and education\nof a hereditary priesthood would be more probable channels of spiritual\nqualifications.\n\nAnother point that the chronicler objects to in Jeroboam\u2019s priests is the\nwant of any other than a property qualification. Any one who chose could\nbe a priest. Such a system combined what might seem opposite vices. It\npreserved an official ministry; these self-appointed priests formed a\nclerical order; and yet it gave no guarantee whatever of either fitness or\ndevotion. The chronicler, on the other hand, by the importance he attaches\nto the Levitical priesthood, recognises the necessity of an official\nministry, but is anxious that it should be guarded with jealous care\nagainst the intrusion of unsuitable persons. A conclusive argument for an\nofficial ministry is to be found in its formal adoption by most Churches\nand its uninvited appearance in the rest. We should not now be contented\nwith the safeguards against unsuitable ministers to be found in hereditary\nsuccession; the system of the Pentateuch would be neither acceptable nor\npossible in the nineteenth century: and yet, if it had been perfectly\nadministered, the Jewish priesthood would have been worthy of its high\noffice, nor were the times ripe for the substitution of any better system.\nMany of the considerations which justify hereditary succession in a\nconstitutional monarchy might be adduced in defence of a hereditary\npriesthood. Even now, without any pressure of law or custom, there is a\ncertain tendency towards hereditary succession in the ministerial office.\nIt would be easy to name distinguished ministers who were inspired for the\nhigh calling by their fathers\u2019 devoted service, and who received an\ninvaluable preparation for their life-work from the Christian enthusiasm\nof a clerical household. The clerical ancestry of the Wesleys is only one\namong many illustrations of an inherited genius for the ministry.\n\nBut though the best method of obtaining a suitable ministry varies with\nchanging circumstances, the chronicler\u2019s main principle is of permanent\nand universal application. The Church has always felt a just concern that\nthe official representatives of its faith and order should commend\nthemselves to every man\u2019s conscience in the sight of God. The prophet\nneeds neither testimonials nor official status: the word of the Lord can\nhave free course without either; but the appointment or election to\necclesiastical office entrusts the official with the honour of the Church\nand in a measure of its Master.\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s other principle is the importance of a suitable and\nauthoritative ritual. We have already noticed that any order of service\nthat is fixed by the constitution or custom of a Church involves the\nprinciple of ritual. Abijah\u2019s speech does not insist that only the\nestablished ritual should be tolerated; such questions had not come within\nthe chronicler\u2019s horizon. The merit of Judah lay in possessing and\npractising a legitimate ritual, that is to say in observing the Pauline\ninjunction to do all things decently and in order. The present generation\nis not inclined to enforce any very stringent obedience to Paul\u2019s\nteaching, and finds it difficult to sympathise with Abijah\u2019s enthusiasm\nfor the symbolism of worship. But men to-day are not radically different\nfrom the chronicler\u2019s contemporaries, and it is as legitimate to appeal to\nspiritual sensibility through the eye as through the ear; architecture and\ndecoration are neither more nor less spiritual than an attractive voice\nand impressive elocution. Novelty and variety have, or should have, their\nlegitimate place in public worship; but the Church has its obligations to\nthose who have more regular spiritual wants. Most of us find much of the\nhelpfulness of public worship in the influence of old and familiar\nspiritual associations, which can only be maintained by a measure of\npermanence and fixity in Divine service. The symbolism of the Lord\u2019s\nSupper never loses its freshness, and yet it is restful because familiar\nand impressive because ancient. On the other hand, the maintenance of this\nritual is a constant testimony to the continuity of Christian life and\nfaith. Moreover, in this rite the great bulk of Christendom finds the\noutward and visible sign of its unity.\n\nRitual, too, has its negative value. By observing the Levitical ordinances\nthe Jews were protected from the vagaries of any ambitious owner of a\nyoung bullock and seven rams. While we grant liberty to all to use the\nform of worship in which they find most spiritual profit, we need to have\nChurches whose ritual will be comparatively fixed. Christians who find\nthemselves most helped by the more quiet and regular methods of devotion\nnaturally look to a settled order of service to protect them from undue\nand distracting excitement.\n\nIn spite of the wide interval that separates the modern Church from\nJudaism, we can still discern a unity of principle, and are glad to\nconfirm the judgment of Christian experience from the lessons of an older\nand different dispensation. But we should do injustice to the chronicler\u2019s\nteaching if we forgot that for his own times his teaching was capable of\nmuch more definite and forcible application. Christianity and Islam have\npurified religious worship throughout Europe, America, and a large portion\nof Asia. We are no longer tempted by the cruel and loathsome rites of\nheathenism. The Jews knew the wild extravagance, gross immorality, and\nruthless cruelty of Ph\u0153nician and Syrian worship. If we had lived in the\nchronicler\u2019s age and had shared his experience of idolatrous rites, we\nshould have also shared his enthusiasm for the pure and lofty ritual of\nthe Pentateuch. We should have regarded it as a Divine barrier between\nIsrael and the abominations of heathenism, and should have been jealous\nfor its strict observance.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III. Asa: Divine Retribution. 2 Chron. xiv.-xvi.\n\n\nAbijah, dying, as far as we can gather from Chronicles, in the odour of\nsanctity, was succeeded by his son Asa. The chronicler\u2019s history of Asa is\nmuch fuller than that which is given in the book of Kings. The older\nnarrative is used as a framework into which material from later sources is\nfreely inserted. The beginning of the new reign was singularly promising.\nAbijah had been a very David, he had fought the battles of Jehovah, and\nhad assured the security and independence of Judah. Asa, like Solomon,\nentered into the peaceful enjoyment of his predecessor\u2019s exertions in the\nfield. \u201cIn his days the land was quiet ten years,\u201d as in the days when the\njudges had delivered Israel, and he was able to exhort his people to\nprudent effort by reminding them that Jehovah had given them rest on every\nside.(344) This interval of quiet was used for both religious reform and\nmilitary precautions.(345) The high places and heathen idols and symbols\nwhich had somehow survived Abijah\u2019s zeal for the Mosaic ritual were swept\naway, and Judah was commanded to seek Jehovah and observe the Law; and he\nbuilt fortresses with towers, and gates, and bars, and raised a great army\n\u201cthat bare bucklers and spears,\u201d\u2014no mere hasty levy of half-armed peasants\nwith scythes and axes. The mighty array surpassed even Abijah\u2019s great\nmuster of four hundred thousand from Judah and Benjamin: there were five\nhundred and eighty thousand men, three hundred thousand out of Judah that\nbare bucklers and spears and two hundred and eighty thousand out of\nBenjamin that bare shields and drew bows. The great muster of Benjamites\nunder Asa is in striking contrast to the meagre tale of six hundred\nwarriors that formed the whole strength of Benjamin after its disastrous\ndefeat in the days of the judges; and the splendid equipment of this\nmighty host shows the rapid progress of the nation from the desperate days\nof Shamgar and Jael or even of Saul\u2019s early reign, when \u201cthere was neither\nshield nor spear seen among forty thousand in Israel.\u201d\n\nThese references to buildings, especially fortresses, to military stores\nand the vast numbers of Jewish and Israelite armies, form a distinct class\namongst the additions made by the chronicler to the material taken from\nthe book of Kings. They are found in the narratives of the reigns of\nDavid, Rehoboam, Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, Jotham, Manasseh, in fact in the\nreigns of nearly all the good kings; Manasseh\u2019s building was done after he\nhad turned from his evil ways.(346) Hezekiah and Josiah were too much\noccupied with sacred festivals on the one hand and hostile invaders on the\nother to have much leisure for building, and it would not have been in\nkeeping with Solomon\u2019s character as the prince of peace to have laid\nstress on his arsenals and armies. Otherwise the chronicler, living at a\ntime when the warlike resources of Judah were of the slightest, was\nnaturally interested in these reminiscences of departed glory; and the\nJewish provincials would take a pride in relating these pieces of\nantiquarian information about their native towns, much as the servants of\nold manor-houses delight to point out the wing which was added by some\nfamous Cavalier or by some Jacobite squire.\n\nAsa\u2019s warlike preparations were possibly intended, like those of the\nTriple Alliance, to enable him to maintain peace; but if so, their sequel\ndid not illustrate the maxim, \u201cSi vis pacem, para bellum.\u201d The rumour of\nhis vast armaments reached a powerful monarch: \u201cZerah the Ethiopian.\u201d(347)\nThe vagueness of this description is doubtless due to the remoteness of\nthe chronicler from the times he is describing. Zerah has sometimes been\nidentified with Shishak\u2019s successor, Osorkon I., the second king of the\ntwenty-second Egyptian dynasty. Zerah felt that Asa\u2019s great army was a\nstanding menace to the surrounding princes, and undertook the task of\ndestroying this new military power: \u201cHe came out against them.\u201d Numerous\nas Asa\u2019s forces were, they still left him dependent upon Jehovah, for the\nenemy were even more numerous and better equipped. Zerah led to a battle\nan army of a million men, supported by three hundred war chariots. With\nthis enormous host he came to Mareshah, at the foot of the Jud\u00e6an\nhighlands, in a direction south-west of Jerusalem. In spite of the\ninferiority of his army, Asa came out to meet him; \u201cand they set the\nbattle in array in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah.\u201d Like Abijah, Asa\nfelt that, with his Divine Ally, he need not be afraid of the odds against\nhim even when they could be counted by hundreds of thousands. Trusting in\nJehovah, he had taken the field against the enemy; and now at the decisive\nmoment he made a confident appeal for help: \u201cJehovah, there is none beside\nThee to help between the mighty and him that hath no strength.\u201d Five\nhundred and eighty thousand men seemed nothing compared to the host\narrayed against them, and outnumbering them in the proportion of nearly\ntwo to one. \u201cHelp us, Jehovah our God; for we rely on Thee, and in Thy\nname are we come against this multitude. Jehovah, Thou art our God; let\nnot man prevail against Thee.\u201d\n\nJehovah justified the trust reposed in Him. He smote the Ethiopians, and\nthey fled towards the south-west in the direction of Egypt; and Asa and\nhis army pursued them as far as Gerar, with fearful slaughter, so that of\nZerah\u2019s million followers not one remained alive.(348) Of course this\nstatement is hyperbolical. The carnage was enormous, and no living enemies\nremained in sight. Apparently Gerar and the neighbouring cities had aided\nZerah in his advance and attempted to shelter the fugitives from Mareshah.\nParalysed with fear of Jehovah, whose avenging wrath had been so terribly\nmanifested, these cities fell an easy prey to the victorious Jews. They\nsmote and spoiled all the cities about Gerar, and reaped a rich harvest,\n\u201cfor there was much spoil in them.\u201d It seems that the nomad tribes of the\nsouthern wilderness had also in some way identified themselves with the\ninvaders; Asa attacked them in their turn. \u201cThey smote also the tents of\ncattle\u201d; and as the wealth of these tribes lay in their flocks and herds;\n\u201cthey carried away sheep in abundance and camels, and returned to\nJerusalem.\u201d\n\nThis victory is closely parallel to that of Abijah over Jeroboam. In both\nthe numbers of the armies are reckoned by hundreds of thousands; and the\nhostile host outnumbers the army of Judah in the one case by exactly two\nto one, in the other by nearly that proportion: in both the king of Judah\ntrusts with calm assurance to the assistance of Jehovah, and Jehovah\nsmites the enemy; the Jews then massacre the defeated army and spoil or\ncapture the neighbouring cities.\n\nThese victories over superior numbers may easily be paralleled or\nsurpassed by numerous striking examples from secular history. The odds\nwere greater at Agincourt, where at least sixty thousand French were\ndefeated by not more than twenty thousand Englishmen; at Marathon the\nGreeks routed a Persian army ten times as numerous as their own; in India\nEnglish generals have defeated innumerable hordes of native warriors, as\nwhen Wellesley\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cAgainst the myriads of Assaye\n    Clashed with his fiery few and won.\u201d\n\n\nFor the most part victorious generals have been ready to acknowledge the\nsuccouring arm of the God of battles. Shakespeare\u2019s Henry V. after\nAgincourt speaks altogether in the spirit of Asa\u2019s prayer:\u2014\n\n\n        \u201c... O God, Thy arm was here;\n    And not to us, but to Thy arm alone,\n    Ascribe we all....\n                        ... Take it, God,\n    For it is only Thine.\u201d\n\n\nWhen the small craft that made up Elizabeth\u2019s fleet defeated the huge\nSpanish galleons and galleasses, and the storms of the northern seas\nfinished the work of destruction, the grateful piety of Protestant England\nfelt that its foes had been destroyed by the breath of the Lord; \u201cAfflavit\nDeus et dissipantur.\u201d\n\nThe principle that underlies such feelings is quite independent of the\nexact proportions of opposing armies. The victories of inferior numbers in\na righteous cause are the most striking, but not the most significant,\nillustrations of the superiority of moral to material force. In the wider\nmovements of international politics we may find even more characteristic\ninstances. It is true of nations as well as of individuals that\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe Lord killeth and maketh alive;\n    He bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up:\n    The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich;\n    He bringeth low, He also lifteth up:\n    He raiseth up the poor out of the dust,\n    He lifteth up the needy from the dunghill,\n    To make them sit with princes\n    And inherit the throne of glory.\u201d\n\n\nItaly in the eighteenth century seemed as hopelessly divided as Israel\nunder the judges, and Greece as completely enslaved to the \u201cunspeakable\nTurk\u201d as the Jews to Nebuchadnezzar; and yet, destitute as they were of\nany material resources, these nations had at their disposal great moral\nforces: the memory of ancient greatness and the sentiment of nationality;\nand to-day Italy can count hundreds of thousands like the chronicler\u2019s\nJewish kings, and Greece builds her fortresses by land and her ironclads\nto command the sea. The Lord has fought for Israel.\n\nBut the principle has a wider application. A little examination of the\nmore obscure and complicated movements of social life will show moral\nforces everywhere overcoming and controlling the apparently irresistible\nmaterial forces opposed to them. The English and American pioneers of the\nmovements for the abolition of slavery had to face what seemed an\nimpenetrable phalanx of powerful interests and influences; but probably\nany impartial student of history would have foreseen the ultimate triumph\nof a handful of earnest men over all the wealth and political power of the\nslave-owners. The moral forces at the disposal of the abolitionists were\nobviously irresistible. But the soldier in the midst of smoke and tumult\nmay still be anxious and despondent at the very moment when the spectator\nsees clearly that the battle is won; and the most earnest Christian\nworkers sometimes falter when they realise the vast and terrible forces\nthat fight against them. At such times we are both rebuked and encouraged\nby the simple faith of the chronicler in the overruling power of God.\n\nIt may be objected that if victory were to be secured by Divine\nintervention, there was no need to muster five hundred and eighty thousand\nmen or indeed any army at all. If in any and every case God disposes, what\nneed is there for the devotion to His service of our best strength, and\nenergy, and culture, or of any human effort at all? A wholesome spiritual\ninstinct leads the chronicler to emphasise the great preparations of\nAbijah and Asa. We have no right to look for Divine co-operation till we\nhave done our best; we are not to sit with folded hands and expect a\ncomplete salvation to be wrought for us, and then to continue as idle\nspectators of God\u2019s redemption of mankind: we are to tax our resources to\nthe utmost to gather our hundreds of thousands of soldiers; we are to work\nout our own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh\nin us both to will and to do of His good pleasure.\n\nThis principle may be put in another way. Even to the hundreds of\nthousands the Divine help is still necessary. The leaders of great hosts\nare as dependent upon Divine help as Jonathan and his armour-bearer\nfighting single-handed against a Philistine garrison, or David arming\nhimself with a sling and stone against Goliath of Gath. The most competent\nChristian worker in the prime of his spiritual strength needs grace as\nmuch as the untried youth making his first venture in the Lord\u2019s service.\n\nAt this point we meet with another of the chronicler\u2019s obvious\nself-contradictions. At the beginning of the narrative of Asa\u2019s reign we\nare told that the king did away with the high places and the symbols of\nidolatrous worship, and that, because Judah had thus sought Jehovah, He\ngave them rest. The deliverance from Zerah is another mark of Divine\nfavour. And yet in the fifteenth chapter Asa, in obedience to prophetic\nadmonition, takes away the abominations from his dominions, as if there\nhad been no previous reformation, but we are told that the high places\nwere not taken out of Israel. The context would naturally suggest that\nIsrael here means Asa\u2019s kingdom, as the true Israel of God; but as the\nverse is borrowed from the book of Kings, and \u201cout of Israel\u201d is an\neditorial addition made by the chronicler, it is probably intended to\nharmonise the borrowed verse with the chronicler\u2019s previous statement that\nAsa did away with the high places. If so, we must understand that Israel\nmeans the northern kingdom, from which the high places had not been\nremoved, though Judah had been purged from these abominations. But here,\nas often elsewhere, Chronicles taken alone affords no explanation of its\ninconsistencies.\n\nAgain, in Asa\u2019s first reformation he commanded Judah to seek Jehovah and\nto do the Law and the commandments; and accordingly Judah sought the Lord.\nMoreover, Abijah, about seventeen years(349) before Asa\u2019s second\nreformation, made it his special boast that Judah had not forsaken\nJehovah, but had priests ministering unto Jehovah, \u201cthe sons of Aaron and\nthe Levites in their work.\u201d During Rehoboam\u2019s reign of seventeen years\nJehovah was duly honoured for the first three years, and again after\nShishak\u2019s invasion in the fifth year of Rehoboam. So that for the previous\nthirty or forty years the due worship of Jehovah had only been interrupted\nby occasional lapses into disobedience. But now the prophet Oded holds\nbefore this faithful people the warning example of the \u201clong seasons\u201d when\nIsrael was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and\nwithout law. And yet previously Chronicles supplies an unbroken list of\nhigh-priests from Aaron downwards. In response to Oded\u2019s appeal, the king\nand people set about the work of reformation as if they had tolerated some\nsuch neglect of God, the priests, and the Law as the prophet had\ndescribed.\n\nAnother minor discrepancy is found in the statement that \u201cthe heart of Asa\nwas perfect all his days\u201d; this is reproduced verbatim from the book of\nKings. Immediately afterwards the chronicler relates the evil doings of\nAsa in the closing years of his reign.\n\nSuch contradictions render it impossible to give a complete and continuous\nexposition of Chronicles that shall be at the same time consistent.\nNevertheless they are not without their value for the Christian student.\nThey afford evidence of the good faith of the chronicler. His\ncontradictions are clearly due to his use of independent and discrepant\nsources, and not to any tampering with the statements of his authorities.\nThey are also an indication that the chronicler attaches much more\nimportance to spiritual edification than to historical accuracy. When he\nseeks to set before his contemporaries the higher nature and better life\nof the great national heroes, and thus to provide them with an ideal of\nkingship, he is scrupulously and painfully careful to remove everything\nthat would weaken the force of the lesson which he is trying to teach; but\nhe is comparatively indifferent to accuracy of historical detail. When his\nauthorities contradict each other as to the number or the date of Asa\u2019s\nreformations, or even the character of his later years, he does not\nhesitate to place the two narratives side by side and practically to draw\nlessons from both. The work of the chronicler and its presence with the\nPentateuch and the Synoptic Gospels in the sacred canon imply an emphatic\ndeclaration of the judgment of the Spirit and the Church that detailed\nhistorical accuracy is not a necessary consequence of inspiration. In\nexpounding this second narrative of a reformation by Asa, we shall make no\nattempt at complete harmony with the rest of Chronicles; any inconsistency\nbetween the exposition here and elsewhere will simply arise from a\nfaithful adherence to our text.\n\nThe occasion then of Asa\u2019s second reformation(350) was as follows: Asa was\nreturning in triumph from his great defeat of Zerah, bringing with him\nsubstantial fruits of victory in the shape of abundant spoil. Wealth and\npower had proved a snare to David and Rehoboam, and had involved them in\ngrievous sin. Asa might also have succumbed to the temptations of\nprosperity; but, by a special Divine grace not vouchsafed to his\npredecessors, he was guarded against danger by a prophetic warning. At the\nvery moment when Asa might have expected to be greeted by the acclamations\nof the inhabitants of Jerusalem, when the king would be elate with the\nsense of Divine favour, military success, and popular applause, the\nprophet\u2019s admonition checked the undue exaltation which might have hurried\nAsa into presumptuous sin. Asa and his people were not to presume upon\ntheir privilege; its continuance was altogether dependent upon their\ncontinued obedience: if they fell into sin, the rewards of their former\nloyalty would vanish like fairy gold. \u201cHear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and\nBenjamin: Jehovah is with you while ye be with Him; and if ye seek Him, He\nwill be found of you; but if ye forsake Him, He will forsake you.\u201d This\nlesson was enforced from the earlier history of Israel. The following\nverses are virtually a summary of the history of the judges:\u2014\n\n\u201cNow for long seasons Israel was without the true God, and without\nteaching priest, and without law.\u201d\n\nJudges tells how again and again Israel fell away from Jehovah. \u201cBut when\nin their distress they turned unto Jehovah, the God of Israel, and sought\nHim, He was found of them.\u201d\n\nOded\u2019s address is very similar to another and somewhat fuller summary of\nthe history of the judges, contained in Samuel\u2019s farewell to the people,\nin which he reminded them how when they forgot Jehovah, their God, He sold\nthem into the hand of their enemies, and when they cried unto Jehovah, He\nsent Zerubbabel, and Barak, and Jephthah, and Samuel, and delivered them\nout of the hand of their enemies on every side, and they dwelt in\nsafety.(351) Oded proceeds to other characteristics of the period of the\njudges: \u201cThere was no peace to him that went out, nor to him that came in;\nbut great vexations were upon all the inhabitants of the lands. And they\nwere broken in pieces, nation against nation and city against city, for\nGod did vex them with all adversity.\u201d\n\nDeborah\u2019s song records great vexations: the highways were unoccupied, and\nthe travellers walked through by-ways; the rulers ceased in Israel; Gideon\n\u201cthreshed wheat by the winepress to hide it from the Midianites.\u201d The\nbreaking of nation against nation and city against city will refer to the\ndestruction of Succoth and Penuel by Gideon, the sieges of Shechem and\nThebez by Abimelech, the massacre of the Ephraimites by Jephthah, and the\ncivil war between Benjamin and the rest of Israel and the consequent\ndestruction of Jabesh-gilead.(352)\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d said Oded, \u201cbe ye strong, and let not your hands be slack, for your\nwork shall be rewarded.\u201d Oded implies that abuses were prevalent in Judah\nwhich might spread and corrupt the whole people, so as to draw down upon\nthem the wrath of God and plunge them into all the miseries of the times\nof the judges. These abuses were wide-spread, supported by powerful\ninterests and numerous adherents. The queen-mother, one of the most\nimportant personages in an Eastern state, was herself devoted to heathen\nobservances. Their suppression needed courage, energy, and pertinacity;\nbut if they were resolutely grappled with, Jehovah would reward the\nefforts of His servants with success, and Judah would enjoy prosperity.\nAccordingly Asa took courage and put away the abominations out of Judah\nand Benjamin and the cities he held in Ephraim. The abominations were the\nidols and all the cruel and obscene accompaniments of heathen\nworship.(353) In the prophet\u2019s exhortation to be strong, and not be slack,\nand in the corresponding statement that Asa took courage, we have a hint\nfor all reformers. Neither Oded nor Asa underrated the serious nature of\nthe task before them. They counted the cost, and with open eyes and full\nknowledge confronted the evil they meant to eradicate. The full\nsignificance of the chronicler\u2019s language is only seen when we remember\nwhat preceded the prophet\u2019s appeal to Asa. The captain of half a million\nsoldiers, the conqueror of a million Ethiopians with three hundred\nchariots, has to take courage before he can bring himself to put away the\nabominations out of his own dominions. Military machinery is more readily\ncreated than national righteousness; it is easier to slaughter one\u2019s\nneighbours than to let light into the dark places that are full of the\nhabitations of cruelty; and vigorous foreign policy is a poor substitute\nfor good administration. The principle has its application to the\nindividual. The beam in our own eye seems more difficult to extract than\nthe mote in our brother\u2019s, and a man often needs more moral courage to\nreform himself than to denounce other people\u2019s sins or urge them to accept\nsalvation. Most ministers could confirm from their own experience Portia\u2019s\nsaying, \u201cI can easier teach twenty what were good to be done than be one\nof the twenty to follow mine own teaching.\u201d\n\nAsa\u2019s reformation was constructive as well as destructive; the toleration\nof \u201cabominations\u201d had diminished the zeal of the people for Jehovah, and\neven the altar of Jehovah before the porch of the Temple had suffered from\nneglect: it was now renewed, and Asa assembled the people for a great\nfestival. Under Rehoboam many pious Israelites had left the northern\nkingdom to dwell where they could freely worship at the Temple; under Asa\nthere was a new migration, \u201cfor they fell to him out of Israel in\nabundance when they saw that Jehovah his God was with him.\u201d And so it came\nabout that in the great assembly which Asa gathered together at Jerusalem\nnot only Judah and Benjamin, but also Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon, were\nrepresented. The chronicler has already told us that after the return from\nthe Captivity some of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh dwelt at\nJerusalem with the children of Judah and Benjamin,(354) and he is always\ncareful to note any settlement of members of the ten tribes in Judah or\nany acquisition of northern territory by the kings of Judah. Such facts\nillustrated his doctrine that Judah was the true spiritual Israel, the\nreal \u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, or twelve-tribed whole, of the chosen people.\n\nAsa\u2019s festival was held in the third month of his fifteenth year, the\nmonth Sivan, corresponding roughly to our June. The Feast of Weeks, at\nwhich first-fruits were offered, fell in this month; and his festival was\nprobably a special celebration of this feast. The sacrifice of seven\nhundred oxen and seven thousand sheep out of the spoil taken from the\nEthiopians and their allies might be considered a kind of first-fruits.\nThe people pledged themselves most solemnly to permanent obedience to\nJehovah; this festival and its offerings were to be first-fruits or\nearnest of future loyalty. \u201cThey entered into a covenant to seek Jehovah,\nthe God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul;\n... they sware unto Jehovah with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with\ntrumpets, and with cornets.\u201d The observance of this covenant was not to be\nleft to the uncertainties of individual loyalty; the community were to be\non their guard against offenders, Achans who might trouble Israel.\nAccording to the stern law of the Pentateuch,(355) \u201cwhosoever would not\nseek Jehovah, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or\ngreat, whether man or woman.\u201d The seeking of Jehovah, so far as it could\nbe enforced by penalties, must have consisted in external observances; and\nthe usual proof that a man did not seek Jehovah would be found in his\nseeking other gods and taking part in heathen rites. Such apostacy was not\nmerely an ecclesiastical offence: it involved immorality and a falling\naway from patriotism. The pious Jew could no more tolerate heathenism than\nwe could tolerate in England religions that sanctioned polygamy or suttee.\n\nHaving thus entered into covenant with Jehovah, \u201call Judah rejoiced at\ntheir oath because they had sworn with all their heart, and sought Him\nwith their whole desire.\u201d At the beginning, no doubt, they, like their\nking, \u201ctook courage\u201d; they addressed themselves with reluctance and\napprehension to an unwelcome and hazardous enterprise. They now rejoiced\nover the Divine grace that had inspired their efforts and been manifested\nin their courage and devotion, over the happy issue of their enterprise,\nand over the universal enthusiasm for Jehovah; and He set the seal of His\napproval upon their gladness, He was found of them, and Jehovah gave them\nrest round about, so that there was no more war for twenty years: unto the\nthirty-fifth year of Asa\u2019s reign. It is an unsavoury task to put away\nabominations: many foul nests of unclean birds are disturbed in the\nprocess; men would not choose to have this particular cross laid upon\nthem, but only those who take up their cross and follow Christ can hope to\nenter into the joy of the Lord.\n\nThe narrative of this second reformation is completed by the addition of\ndetails borrowed from the book of Kings. The chronicler next recounts how\nin the thirty-sixth year of Asa\u2019s reign Baasha began to fortify Ramah as\nan outpost against Judah, but was forced to abandon his undertaking by the\nintervention of the Syrian king, Benhadad, whom Asa hired with his own\ntreasures and those of the Temple; whereupon Asa carried off Baasha\u2019s\nstones and timber and built Geba and Mizpah as Jewish outposts against\nIsrael. With the exception of the date and a few minor changes, the\nnarrative so far is taken verbatim from the book of Kings. The chronicler,\nlike the author of the priestly document of the Pentateuch, was anxious to\nprovide his readers with an exact and complete system of chronology; he\nwas the Ussher or Clinton of his generation. His date of the war against\nBaasha is probably based upon an interpretation of the source used for\nchap. xv.; the first reformation secured a rest of ten years, the second\nand more thorough reformation a rest exactly twice as long as the first.\nIn the interest of these chronological references, the chronicler has\nsacrificed a statement twice repeated in the book of Kings: that there was\nwar between Asa and Baasha all their days. As Baasha came to the throne in\nAsa\u2019s third year, the statement of the book of Kings would have seemed to\ncontradict the chronicler\u2019s assertion that there was no war from the\nfifteenth to the thirty-fifth year of Asa\u2019s reign.(356)\n\nAfter his victory over Zerah, Asa received a Divine message(357) which\nsomewhat checked the exuberance of his triumph; a similar message awaited\nhim after his successful expedition to Ramah. By Oded Jehovah had warned\nAsa, but now He commissioned Hanani the seer to pronounce a sentence of\ncondemnation. The ground of the sentence was that Asa had not relied on\nJehovah, but on the king of Syria.\n\nHere the chronicler echoes one of the key-notes of the great prophets.\nIsaiah had protested against the alliance which Ahaz concluded with\nAssyria in order to obtain assistance against the united onset of Rezin,\nking of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel, and had predicted that Jehovah\nwould bring upon Ahaz, his people, and his dynasty days that had not come\nsince the disruption, even the king of Assyria.(358) When this prediction\nwas fulfilled, and the thundercloud of Assyrian invasion darkened all the\nland of Judah, the Jews, in their lack of faith, looked to Egypt for\ndeliverance; and again Isaiah denounced the foreign alliance: \u201cWoe to them\nthat go down to Egypt for help, ... but they look not unto the Holy One of\nIsrael, neither seek Jehovah; ... the strength of Pharaoh shall be your\nshame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt your confusion.\u201d(359) So\nJeremiah in his turn protested against a revival of the Egyptian alliance:\n\u201cThou shall be ashamed of Egypt also, as thou wast ashamed of\nAssyria.\u201d(360)\n\nIn their successive calamities the Jews could derive no comfort from a\nstudy of previous history; the pretext upon which each of their oppressors\nhad intervened in the affairs of Palestine had been an invitation from\nJudah. In their trouble they had sought a remedy worse than the disease;\nthe consequences of this political quackery had always demanded still more\ndesperate and fatal medicines. Freedom from the border raids of the\nEphraimites was secured at the price of the ruthless devastations of\nHazael; deliverance from Rezin only led to the wholesale massacres and\nspoliation of Sennacherib. Foreign alliance was an opiate that had to be\ntaken in continually increasing doses, till at last it caused the death of\nthe patient.\n\nNevertheless these are not the lessons which the seer seeks to impress\nupon Asa. Hanani takes a loftier tone. He does not tell him that his\nunholy alliance with Benhadad was the first of a chain of circumstances\nthat would end in the ruin of Judah. Few generations are greatly disturbed\nby the prospect of the ruin of their country in the distant future: \u201cAfter\nus the Deluge.\u201d Even the pious king Hezekiah, when told of the coming\ncaptivity of Judah, found much comfort in the thought that there should be\npeace and truth in his days. After the manner of the prophets, Hanani\u2019s\nmessage is concerned with his own times. To his large faith the alliance\nwith Syria presented itself chiefly as the loss of a great opportunity.\nAsa had deprived himself of the privilege of fighting with Syria, whereby\nJehovah would have found fresh occasion to manifest His infinite power and\nHis gracious favour towards Judah. Had there been no alliance with Judah,\nthe restless and warlike king of Syria might have joined Baasha to attack\nAsa; another million of the heathen and other hundreds of their chariots\nwould have been destroyed by the resistless might of the Lord of Hosts.\nAnd yet, in spite of the great object-lesson he had received in the defeat\nof Zerah, Asa had not thought of Jehovah as his Ally. He had forgotten the\nall-observing, all-controlling providence of Jehovah, and had thought it\nnecessary to supplement the Divine protection by hiring a heathen king\nwith the treasures of the Temple; and yet \u201cthe eyes of Jehovah run to and\nfro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong in behalf of them\nwhose heart is perfect toward Him.\u201d With this thought, that the eyes of\nJehovah run to and fro throughout the earth, Zechariah(361) comforted the\nJews in the dark days between the Return and the rebuilding of the Temple.\nPossibly during Asa\u2019s twenty years of tranquillity his faith had become\nenfeebled for want of any severe discipline. It is only with a certain\nreserve that we can venture to pray that the Lord will \u201ctake from our\nlives the strain and stress.\u201d The discipline of helplessness and\ndependence preserves the consciousness of God\u2019s loving providence. The\nresources of Divine grace are not altogether intended for our personal\ncomfort; we are to tax them to the utmost, in the assurance that God will\nhonour all our drafts upon His treasury. The great opportunities of twenty\nyears of peace and prosperity were not given to Asa to lay up funds with\nwhich to bribe a heathen king, and then, with this reinforcement of his\naccumulated resources to accomplish the mighty enterprise of stealing\nBaasha\u2019s stones and timber and building the walls of a couple of frontier\nfortresses. With such a history and such opportunities behind him, Asa\nshould have felt himself competent, with Jehovah\u2019s help, to deal with both\nBaasha and Benhadad, and should have had courage to confront them both.\n\nSin like Asa\u2019s has been the supreme apostacy of the Church in all her\nbranches and through all her generations: Christ has been denied, not by\nlack of devotion, but by want of faith. Champions of the truth, reformers\nand guardians of the Temple, like Asa, have been eager to attach to their\nholy cause the cruel prejudices of ignorance and folly, the greed and\nvindictiveness of selfish men. They have feared lest these potent forces\nshould be arrayed amongst the enemies of the Church and her Master. Sects\nand parties have eagerly contested the privilege of counselling a\nprofligate prince how he should satisfy his thirst for blood and exercise\nhis wanton and brutal insolence; the Church has countenanced almost every\niniquity and striven to quench by persecution every new revelation of the\nSpirit, in order to conciliate vested interests and established\nauthorities. It has even been suggested that national Churches and great\nnational vices were so intimately allied that their supporters were\ncontent that they should stand or fall together. On the other hand, the\nadvocates of reform have not been slow to appeal to popular jealousy and\nto aggravate the bitterness of social feuds. To Hanani the seer had come\nthe vision of a larger and purer faith, that would rejoice to see the\ncause of Satan supported by all the evil passions and selfish interests\nthat are his natural allies. He was assured that the greater the host of\nSatan, the more signal and complete would be Jehovah\u2019s triumph. If we had\nhis faith, we should not be anxious to bribe Satan to cast out Satan, but\nshould come to understand that the full muster of hell assailing us in\nfront is less dangerous than a few companies of diabolic mercenaries in\nour own array. In the former case the overthrow of the powers of darkness\nis more certain and more complete.\n\nThe evil consequences of Asa\u2019s policy were not confined to the loss of a\ngreat opportunity, nor were his treasures the only price he was to pay for\nfortifying Geba and Mizpah with Baasha\u2019s building materials. Hanani\ndeclared to him that from henceforth he should have wars. This purchased\nalliance was only the beginning, and not the end, of troubles. Instead of\nthe complete and decisive victory which had disposed of the Ethiopians\nonce for all, Asa and his people were harassed and exhausted by continual\nwarfare. The Christian life would have more decisive victories, and would\nbe less of a perpetual and wearing struggle, if we had faith to refrain\nfrom the use of doubtful means for high ends.\n\nOded\u2019s message of warning had been accepted and obeyed, but Asa was now no\nlonger docile to Divine discipline. David and Hezekiah submitted\nthemselves to the censure of Gad and Isaiah; but Asa was wroth with Hanani\nand put him in prison, because the prophet had ventured to rebuke him. His\nsin against God corrupted even his civil administration; and the ally of a\nheathen king, the persecutor of God\u2019s prophet, also oppressed the people.\nThree years(362) after the repulse of Baasha a new punishment fell upon\nAsa: his feet became grievously diseased. Still he did not humble himself,\nbut was guilty of further sin(363): he sought not Jehovah, but the\nphysicians. It is probable that to seek Jehovah concerning disease was not\nmerely a matter of worship. Reuss has suggested that the legitimate\npractice of medicine belonged to the schools of the prophets; but it seems\nquite as likely that in Judah, as in Egypt, any existing knowledge of the\nart of healing was to be found among the priests. Conversely physicians\nwho were neither priests nor prophets of Jehovah were almost certain to be\nministers of idolatrous worship and magicians. They failed apparently to\nrelieve their patient: Asa lingered in pain and weakness for two years,\nand then died. Possibly the sufferings of his latter days had protected\nhis people from further oppression, and had at once appealed to their\nsympathy and removed any cause for resentment. When he died, they only\nremembered his virtues and achievements; and buried him with royal\nmagnificence, with sweet odours and divers kinds of spices; and made a\nvery great burning for him, probably of aromatic woods.\n\nIn discussing the chronicler\u2019s picture of the good kings, we have noticed\nthat, while Chronicles and the book of Kings agree in mentioning the\nmisfortunes which as a rule darkened their closing years, Chronicles in\neach case records some lapse into sin as preceding these misfortunes. From\nthe theological standpoint of the chronicler\u2019s school, these invidious\nrecords of the sins of good kings were necessary in order to account for\ntheir misfortunes. The devout student of the book of Kings read with\nsurprise that of the pious kings who had been devoted to Jehovah and His\ntemple, whose acceptance by Him had been shown by the victories vouchsafed\nto them, one had died of a painful disease in his feet, another in a\nlazar-house, two had been assassinated, and one slain in battle. Why had\nfaith and devotion been so ill rewarded? Was it not vain to serve God?\nWhat profit was there in keeping His ordinances? The chronicler felt\nhimself fortunate in discovering amongst his later authorities additional\ninformation which explained these mysteries and justified the ways of God\nto man. Even the good kings had not been without reproach, and their\nmisfortunes had been the righteous judgment on their sins.\n\nThe principle which guided the chronicler in this selection of material\nwas that sin was always punished by complete, immediate, and manifest\nretribution in this life, and that conversely all misfortune was the\npunishment of sin. There is a simplicity and apparent justice about this\ntheory that has always made it the leading doctrine of a certain stage of\nmoral development. It was probably the popular religious teaching in\nIsrael from early days till the time when our Lord found it necessary to\nprotest against the idea that the Galil\u00e6ans whose blood Pilate had mingled\nwith their sacrifices were sinners above all Galil\u00e6ans because they had\nsuffered these things, or that the eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam\nfell, and killed them, were offenders above all the inhabitants of\nJerusalem. This doctrine of retribution was current among the Greeks. When\nterrible calamities fell upon men, their neighbours supposed these to be\nthe punishment of specially heinous crimes. When the Spartan king\nCleomenes committed suicide, the public mind in Greece at once inquired of\nwhat particular sin he had thus paid the penalty. The horrible\ncircumstances of his death were attributed to the wrath of some offended\ndeity, and the cause of the offence was sought for in one of his many acts\nof sacrilege. Possibly he was thus punished because he had bribed the\npriestess of the Delphic oracle. The Athenians, however, believed that his\nsacrilege had consisted in cutting down trees in their sacred grove at\nEleusis; but the Argives preferred to hold that he came to an untimely end\nbecause he had set fire to a grove sacred to their eponymous hero Argos.\nSimilarly, when in the course of the Peloponnesian war the \u00c6ginetans were\nexpelled from their island, this calamity was regarded as a punishment\ninflicted upon them because fifty years before they had dragged away and\nput to death a suppliant who had caught hold of the handle of the door of\nthe temple of Demeter Theomophorus. On the other hand, the wonderful way\nin which on four or five occasions the ravages of pestilence delivered\nDionysius of Syracuse from his Carthaginian enemies was attributed by his\nadmiring friends to the favour of the gods.\n\nLike many other simple and logical doctrines, this Jewish theory of\nretribution came into collision with obvious facts, and seemed to set the\nlaw of God at variance with the enlightened conscience. \u201cBeneath the\nsimplest forms of truth the subtlest error lurks.\u201d The prosperity of the\nwicked and the sufferings of the righteous were a standing religious\ndifficulty to the devout Israelite. The popular doctrine held its ground\ntenaciously, supported not only by ancient prescription, but also by the\nmost influential classes in society. All who were young, robust, wealthy,\npowerful, or successful were interested in maintaining a doctrine that\nmade health, riches, rank, and success the outward and visible signs of\nrighteousness. Accordingly the simplicity of the original doctrine was\nhedged about with an ingenious and elaborate apologetic. The prosperity of\nthe wicked was held to be only for a season; before he died the judgment\nof God would overtake him. It was a mistake to speak of the sufferings of\nthe righteous: these very sufferings showed that his righteousness was\nonly apparent, and that in secret he had been guilty of grievous sin.\n\nOf all the cruelty inflicted in the name of orthodoxy there is little that\ncan surpass the refined torture due to this Jewish apologetic. Its cynical\nteaching met the sufferer in the anguish of bereavement, in the pain and\ndepression of disease, when he was crushed by sudden and ruinous losses or\npublicly disgraced by the unjust sentence of a venal law-court. Instead of\nreceiving sympathy and help, he found himself looked upon as a moral\noutcast and pariah on account of his misfortunes; when he most needed\nDivine grace, he was bidden to regard himself as a special object of the\nwrath of Jehovah. If his orthodoxy survived his calamities, he would\nreview his past life with morbid retrospection, and persuade himself that\nhe had indeed been guilty above all other sinners.\n\nThe book of Job is an inspired protest against the current theory of\nretribution, and the full discussion of the question belongs to the\nexposition of that book. But the narrative of Chronicles, like much Church\nhistory in all ages, is largely controlled by the controversial interests\nof the school from which it emanated. In the hands of the chronicler the\nstory of the kings of Judah is told in such a way that it becomes a\npolemic against the book of Job. The tragic and disgraceful death of good\nkings presented a crucial difficulty to the chronicler\u2019s theology. A good\nman\u2019s other misfortunes might be compensated for by prosperity in his\nlatter days; but in a theory of retribution which required a complete\nsatisfaction of justice in this life there could be no compensation for a\ndishonourable death. Hence the chronicler\u2019s anxiety to record any lapses\nof good kings in their latter days.\n\nThe criticism and correction of this doctrine belongs, as we have said, to\nthe exposition of the book of Job. Here we are rather concerned to\ndiscover the permanent truth of which the theory is at once an imperfect\nand exaggerated expression. To begin with, there are sins which bring upon\nthe transgressor a swift, obvious, and dramatic punishment. Human law\ndeals thus with some sins; the laws of health visit others with a similar\nseverity; at times the Divine judgment strikes down men and nations before\nan awe-stricken world. Amongst such judgments we might reckon the\npunishments of royal sins so frequent in the pages of Chronicles. God\u2019s\njudgments are not usually so immediate and manifest, but these striking\ninstances illustrate and enforce the certain consequences of sin. We are\ndealing now with cases in which God was set at nought; and, apart from\nDivine grace, the votaries of sin are bound to become its slaves and\nvictims. Ruskin has said, \u201cMedicine often fails of its effect, but poison\nnever; and while, in summing the observation of past life not unwatchfully\nspent, I can truly say that I have a thousand times seen Patience\ndisappointed of her hope and Wisdom of her aim, I have never yet seen\nfolly fruitless of mischief, nor vice conclude but in calamity.\u201d(364) Now\nthat we have been brought into a fuller light and delivered from the\npractical dangers of the ancient Israelite doctrine, we can afford to\nforget the less satisfactory aspects of the chronicler\u2019s teaching, and we\nmust feel grateful to him for enforcing the salutary and necessary lesson\nthat sin brings inevitable punishment, and that therefore, whatever\npresent appearances may suggest, \u201cthe world was certainly not framed for\nthe lasting convenience of hypocrites, libertines, and oppressors.\u201d(365)\n\nIndeed, the consequences of sin are regular and exact; and the judgments\nupon the kings of Judah in Chronicles accurately symbolise the operations\nof Divine discipline. But pain, and ruin, and disgrace are only secondary\nelements in God\u2019s judgments; and most often they are not judgments at all.\nThey have their uses as chastisements; but if we dwell upon them with too\nemphatic an insistence, men suppose that pain is a worse evil than sin,\nand that sin is only to be avoided because it causes suffering to the\nsinner. The really serious consequence of evil acts is the formation and\nconfirmation of evil character. Herbert Spencer says in his _First\nPrinciples_(366) \u201cthat motion once set up along any line becomes itself a\ncause of subsequent motion along that line.\u201d This is absolutely true in\nmoral and spiritual dynamics: every wrong thought, feeling, word, or act,\nevery failure to think, feel, speak, or act rightly, at once alters a\nman\u2019s character for the worse. Henceforth he will find it easier to sin\nand more difficult to do right; he has twisted another strand into the\ncord of habit: and though each may be as fine as the threads of a spider\u2019s\nweb, in time there will be cords strong enough to have bound Samson before\nDelilah shaved off his seven locks. This is the true punishment of sin: to\nlose the fine instincts, the generous impulses, and the nobler ambitions\nof manhood, and become every day more of a beast and a devil.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV. Jehoshaphat\u2014The Doctrine Of Non-Resistance. 2 Chron. xvii.-xx.\n\n\nAsa was succeeded by his son Jehoshaphat, and his reign began even more\nauspiciously(367) than that of Asa. The new king had apparently taken\nwarning from the misfortunes of Asa\u2019s closing years; and as he was\nthirty-five years old when he came to the throne, he had been trained\nbefore Asa fell under the Divine displeasure. He walked in the first ways\nof his father David, before David was led away by Satan to number Israel.\nJehoshaphat\u2019s heart was lifted up, not with foolish pride, like\nHezekiah\u2019s, but \u201cin the ways of Jehovah.\u201d He sought the God of his father,\nand walked in God\u2019s commandments, and was not led astray by the evil\nexample and influence of the kings of Israel, neither did he seek the\nBaals. While Asa had been enfeebled by illness and alienated from Jehovah,\nthe high places and the Asherim had sprung up again like a crop of evil\nweeds; but Jehoshaphat once more removed them. According to the\nchronicler, this removing of high places was a very labour of Sisyphus:\nthe stone was no sooner rolled up to the top of the hill than it rolled\ndown again. Jehoshaphat seems to have had an inkling of this; he felt that\nthe destruction of idolatrous sanctuaries and symbols was like mowing down\nweeds and leaving the roots in the soil. Accordingly he made an attempt to\ndeal more radically with the evil: he would take away the inclination as\nwell as the opportunity for corrupt rites. A commission of princes,\npriests, and Levites was sent throughout all the cities of Judah to\ninstruct the people in the law of Jehovah. Vice will always find\nopportunities; it is little use to suppress evil institutions unless the\npeople are educated out of evil propensities. If, for instance, every\npublic-house in England were closed to-morrow, and there were still\nmillions of throats craving for drink, drunkenness would still prevail,\nand a new administration would promptly reopen gin-shops.\n\nBecause the new king thus earnestly and consistently sought the God of his\nfathers, Jehovah was with him, and established the kingdom in his hand.\nJehoshaphat received all the marks of Divine favour usually bestowed upon\ngood kings. He waxed great exceedingly; he had many fortresses, an immense\narmy, and much wealth; he built castles and cities of store; he had\narsenals for the supply of war material in the cities of Judah. And these\ncities, together with other defensible positions and the border cities of\nEphraim occupied by Judah, were held by strong garrisons. While David had\ncontented himself with two hundred and eighty-eight thousand men from all\nIsrael, and Abijah had led forth four hundred thousand, and Asa five\nhundred and eighty thousand, there waited on Jehoshaphat, in addition to\nhis numerous garrisons, _eleven hundred and sixty thousand men_. Of these\nseven hundred and eighty thousand were men of Judah in three divisions,\nand three hundred and eighty thousand were Benjamites in two divisions.\nProbably the steady increase of the armies of Abijah, Asa, and Jehoshaphat\nsymbolises a proportionate increase of Divine favour.\n\nThe chronicler records the names of the captains of the five divisions.\nTwo of them are singled out for special commendation: Eliada the Benjamite\nis styled \u201ca mighty man of valour,\u201d and of the Jewish captain Amaziah the\nson of Zichri it is said that he offered either himself or his possessions\nwillingly to Jehovah, as David and his princes had offered, for the\nbuilding of the Temple. The devout king had devout officers.\n\nHe had also devoted subjects. All Judah brought him presents, so that he\nhad great riches and ample means to sustain his royal power and splendour.\nMoreover, as in the case of Solomon and Asa, his piety was rewarded with\nfreedom from war: \u201cThe fear of Jehovah fell upon all the kingdoms round\nabout, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat.\u201d Some of his weaker\nneighbours were overawed by the spectacle of his great power; the\nPhilistines brought him presents and tribute money, and the Arabians\nimmense flocks of rams and he-goats, seven thousand seven hundred of each.\n\nGreat prosperity had the usual fatal effect upon Jehoshaphat\u2019s character.\nIn the beginning of his reign he had strengthened himself against Israel\nand had refused to walk in their ways; now power had developed ambition,\nand he sought and obtained the honour of marrying his son Jehoram to\nAthaliah the daughter of Ahab, the mighty and magnificent king of Israel,\npossibly also the daughter of the Ph\u0153nician princess Jezebel, the devotee\nof Baal. This family connection of course implied political alliance.\nAfter a time Jehoshaphat went down to visit his new ally, and was\nhospitably received.(368)\n\nThen follows the familiar story of Micaiah the son of Imlah, the\ndisastrous expedition of the two kings, and the death of Ahab, almost\nexactly as in the book of Kings. There is one significant alteration: both\nnarratives tell us how the Syrian captains attacked Jehoshaphat because\nthey took him for the king of Israel and gave up their pursuit when he\ncried out, and they discovered their mistake; but the chronicler adds the\nexplanation that Jehovah helped him and God moved them to depart from him.\nAnd so the master of more than a million soldiers was happy in being\nallowed to escape on account of his insignificance, and returned in peace\nto Jerusalem. Oded and Hanani had met his predecessors on their return\nfrom victory; now Jehu the son of Hanani(369) met Jehoshaphat when he came\nhome defeated. Like his father, the prophet was charged with a message of\nrebuke. An alliance with the northern kingdom was scarcely less\nreprehensible than one with Syria: \u201cShouldest thou help the wicked, and\nlove them that hate Jehovah? Jehovah is wroth with thee.\u201d Asa\u2019s previous\nreforms were not allowed to mitigate the severity of his condemnation, but\nJehovah was more merciful to Jehoshaphat. The prophet makes mention of his\npiety and his destruction of idolatrous symbols, and no further punishment\nis inflicted upon him.\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s addition to the account of the king\u2019s escape from the\nSyrian captains reminds us that God still watches over and protects His\nchildren even when they are in the very act of sinning against Him.\nJehovah knew that Jehoshaphat\u2019s sinful alliance with Ahab did not imply\ncomplete revolt and apostacy. Hence doubtless the comparative mildness of\nthe prophet\u2019s reproof.\n\nWhen Jehu\u2019s father Hanani rebuked Asa, the king flew into a passion, and\ncast the prophet into prison; Jehoshaphat received Jehu\u2019s reproof in a\nvery different spirit(370): he repented himself, and found a new zeal in\nhis penitence. Learning from his own experience the proneness of the human\nheart to go astray, he went out himself amongst his people to bring them\nback to Jehovah; and just as Asa in his apostacy oppressed his people,\nJehoshaphat in his renewed loyalty to Jehovah showed himself anxious for\ngood government. He provided judges in all the walled towns of Judah, with\na court of appeal at Jerusalem; he solemnly charged them to remember their\nresponsibility to Jehovah, to avoid bribery, and not to truckle to the\nrich and powerful. Being themselves faithful to Jehovah, they were to\ninculcate a like obedience and warn the people not to sin against the God\nof their fathers. Jehoshaphat\u2019s exhortation to his new judges concludes\nwith a sentence whose martial resonance suggests trial by combat rather\nthan the peaceful proceedings of a law-court: \u201cDeal courageously, and\nJehovah defend the right!\u201d\n\nThe principle that good government must be a necessary consequence of\npiety in the rulers has not been so uniformly observed in later times as\nin the pages of Chronicles. The testimony of history on this point is not\naltogether consistent. In spite of all the faults of the orthodox and\ndevout Greek emperors Theodosius the Great and Marcian, their\nadministration rendered important services to the empire. Alfred the Great\nwas a distinguished statesman and warrior as well as zealous for true\nreligion. St. Louis of France exercised a wise control over Church and\nstate. It is true that when a woman reproached him in open court with\nbeing a king of friars, of priests, and of clerks, and not a true king of\nFrance, he replied with saintly meekness, \u201cYou say true! It has pleased\nthe Lord to make me king; it had been well if it had pleased Him to make\nsome one king who had better ruled the realm.\u201d(371) But something must be\nallowed for the modesty of the saint; apart from his unfortunate crusades,\nit would have been difficult for France or even Europe to have furnished a\nmore beneficent sovereign. On the other hand, Charlemagne\u2019s successor, the\nEmperor Louis the Pious, and our own kings Edward the Confessor and the\nsaintly Henry VI., were alike feeble and inefficient; the zeal of the\nSpanish kings and their kinswoman Mary Tudor is chiefly remembered for its\nghastly cruelty; and in comparatively recent times the misgovernment of\nthe States of the Church was a byword throughout Europe. Many causes\ncombined to produce this mingled record. The one most clearly contrary to\nthe chronicler\u2019s teaching was an immoral opinion that the Christian should\ncease to be a citizen, and that the saint has no duties to society. This\nview is often considered to be the special vice of monasticism, but it\nreappears in one form or another in every generation. The failure of the\nadministration of Louis the Pious is partly explained when we read that he\nwas with difficulty prevented from entering a monastery. In our own day\nthere are those who think that a newspaper should have no interest for a\nreally earnest Christian. According to their ideas, Jehoshaphat should\nhave divided his time between a private oratory in his palace and the\npublic services of the Temple, and have left his kingdom to the mercy of\nunjust judges at home and heathen enemies abroad, or else have abdicated\nin favour of some kinsman whose heart was not so perfect with Jehovah. The\nchronicler had a clearer insight into Divine methods, and this doctrine of\nhis is not one that has been superseded together with the Mosaic ritual.\n\nPossibly the martial tone of the sentence that concludes the account of\nJehoshaphat as the Jewish Justinian is due to the influence upon the\nchronicler\u2019s mind of the incident(372) which he now describes.\n\nJehoshaphat\u2019s next experience was parallel to that of Asa with Zerah. When\nhis new reforms were completed, he was menaced with a formidable invasion.\nHis new enemies were almost as distant and strange as the Ethiopians and\nLubim who had followed Zerah. We hear nothing about any king of Israel or\nDamascus, the usual leaders of assaults upon Judah; we hear instead of a\ntriple alliance against Judah. Two of the allies are Moab and Ammon; but\nthe Jewish kings were not wont to regard these as irresistible foes, so\nthat the extreme dismay which takes possession of king and people must be\ndue to the third ally: the \u201cMeunim.\u201d(373) The Meunim we have already met\nwith in connection with the exploits of the children of Simeon in the\nreign of Hezekiah; they are also mentioned in the reign of Uzziah,(374)\nand nowhere else, unless indeed they are identical with the Maonites, who\nare named with the Amalekites in Judges x. 12. They are thus a people\npeculiar to Chronicles, and appear from this narrative to have inhabited\nMount Seir, by which term \u201cMeunim\u201d is replaced as the story proceeds.(375)\nSince the chronicler wrote so long after the events he describes, we\ncannot attribute to him any very exact knowledge of political geography.\nProbably the term \u201cMeunim\u201d impressed his contemporaries very much as it\ndoes a modern reader, and suggested countless hordes of Bedouin\nplunderers; Josephus calls them a great army of Arabians. This host of\ninvaders came from Edom, and having marched round the southern end of the\nDead Sea, were now at Engedi, on its western shore. The Moabites and\nAmmonites might have crossed the Jordan by the fords near Jericho; but\nthis route would not have been convenient for their allies the Meunim, and\nwould have brought them into collision with the forces of the northern\nkingdom.\n\nOn this occasion Jehoshaphat does not seek any foreign alliance. He does\nnot appeal to Syria, like Asa, nor does he ask Ahab\u2019s successor to repay\nin kind the assistance given to Ahab at Ramoth-gilead, partly perhaps\nbecause there was no time, but chiefly because he had learnt the truth\nwhich Hanani had sought to teach his father, and which Hanani\u2019s son had\ntaught him. He does not even trust in his own hundreds of thousands of\nsoldiers, all of whom cannot have perished at Ramoth-gilead; his\nconfidence is placed solely and absolutely in Jehovah. Jehoshaphat and his\npeople made no military preparations; subsequent events justified their\napparent neglect: none were necessary. Jehoshaphat sought Divine help\ninstead, and proclaimed a fast throughout Judah; and all Judah gathered\nthemselves to Jerusalem to ask help of Jehovah. This great national\nassembly met \u201cbefore the new court\u201d of the Temple. The chronicler, who is\nsupremely interested in the Temple buildings, has told us nothing about\nany new court, nor is it mentioned elsewhere; our author is probably\ngiving the title of a corresponding portion of the second Temple: the\nplace where the people assembled to meet Jehoshaphat would be the great\ncourt built by Solomon.(376)\n\nHere Jehoshaphat stood up as the spokesman of the nation, and prayed to\nJehovah on their behalf and on his own. He recalls the Divine omnipotence;\nJehovah is God of earth and heaven, God of Israel and Ruler of the\nheathen, and therefore able to help even in this great emergency:\u2014\n\n\u201cO Jehovah, God of our fathers, art Thou not God in heaven? Dost Thou not\nrule all the kingdoms of the heathen? And in Thy hand is power and might,\nso that none is able to withstand Thee.\u201d\n\nThe land of Israel had been the special gift of Jehovah to His people, in\nfulfilment of His ancient promise to Abraham:\u2014\n\n\u201cDidst not Thou, O our God, dispossess the inhabitants of this land in\nfavour of Thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham Thy\nfriend for ever?\u201d\n\nAnd now long possession had given Israel a prescriptive right to the Land\nof Promise; and they had, so to speak, claimed their rights in the most\nformal and solemn fashion by erecting a temple to the God of Israel.\nMoreover, the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple had been\naccepted by Jehovah as the basis of His covenant with Israel, and\nJehoshaphat quotes a clause from that prayer or covenant which had\nexpressly provided for such emergencies as the present:\u2014\n\n\u201cAnd they\u201d (Israel) \u201cdwelt in the land, and built Thee therein a sanctuary\nfor Thy name, saying, If evil come upon us, the sword, judgment,\npestilence, or famine, we will stand before this house and before Thee\n(for Thy name is in this house), and cry unto Thee in our affliction; and\nThou wilt hear and save.\u201d(377)\n\nMoreover, the present invasion was not only an attempt to set aside\nJehovah\u2019s disposition of Palestine and the long-established rights of\nIsrael: it was also gross ingratitude, a base return for the ancient\nforbearance of Israel towards her present enemies:\u2014\n\n\u201cAnd now, behold, the children of Ammon and Moab and Mount Seir, whom Thou\nwouldest not let Israel invade when they came out of the land of Egypt,\nbut they turned aside from them and destroyed them not\u2014behold how they\nreward us by coming to dispossess us of Thy possession which Thou hast\ncaused us to possess.\u201d\n\nFor this nefarious purpose the enemies of Israel had come up in\noverwhelming numbers, but Judah was confident in the justice of its cause\nand the favour of Jehovah:\u2014\n\n\u201cO our God, wilt Thou not execute judgment against them? for we have no\nmight against this great company that cometh against us, neither know we\nwhat to do, but our eyes are upon Thee.\u201d\n\nMeanwhile the great assemblage stood in the attitude of supplication\nbefore Jehovah, not a gathering of mighty men of valour praying for\nblessing upon their strength and courage, but a mixed multitude, men and\nwomen, children and infants, seeking sanctuary, as it were, at the Temple,\nand casting themselves in their extremity upon the protecting care of\nJehovah. Possibly when the king finished his prayer the assembly broke out\ninto loud, wailing cries of dismay and agonised entreaty; but the silence\nof the narrative rather suggests that Jehoshaphat\u2019s strong, calm faith\ncommunicated itself to the people, and they waited quietly for Jehovah\u2019s\nanswer, for some token or promise of deliverance. Instead of the confused\ncries of an excited crowd, there was a hush of expectancy, such as\nsometimes falls upon an assembly when a great statesman has risen to utter\nwords which will be big with the fate of empires.\n\nAnd the answer came, not by fire from heaven or any visible sign, not by\nvoice of thunder accompanied by angelic trumpets, nor by angel or\narchangel, but by a familiar voice hitherto unsuspected of any\nsupernatural gifts, by a prophetic utterance whose only credentials were\ngiven by the influence of the Spirit upon the speaker and his audience.\nThe chronicler relates with evident satisfaction how, in the midst of that\ngreat congregation, the Spirit of Jehovah came, not upon king, or priest,\nor acknowledged prophet, but upon a subordinate minister of the Temple, a\nLevite and member of the Temple choir like himself. He is careful to fix\nthe identity of this newly called prophet and to gratify the family pride\nof existing Levitical families by giving the prophet\u2019s genealogy for\nseveral generations. He was Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of\nBenaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, of the sons of Asaph. The\nvery names were encouraging. What more suitable names could be found for a\nmessenger of Divine mercy than Jahaziel\u2014\u201cGod gives prophetic vision\u201d\u2014the\nson of Zechariah\u2014\u201cJehovah remembers\u201d?\n\nJahaziel\u2019s message showed that Jehoshaphat\u2019s prayer had been accepted;\nJehovah responded without reserve to the confidence reposed in Him: He\nwould vindicate His own authority by delivering Judah; Jehoshaphat should\nhave blessed proof of the immense superiority of simple trust in Jehovah\nover an alliance with Ahab or the king of Damascus. Twice the prophet\nexhorts the king and people in the very words that Jehovah had used to\nencourage Joshua when the death of Moses had thrown upon him all the heavy\nresponsibilities of leadership: \u201cFear not, nor be dismayed.\u201d They need no\nlonger cling like frightened suppliants to the sanctuary, but are to go\nforth at once, the very next day, against the enemy. That they may lose no\ntime in looking for them, Jehovah announces the exact spot where the enemy\nare to be found: \u201cBehold, they are coming by the ascent of Hazziz,(378)\nand ye shall find them at the end of the ravine before the wilderness of\nJeruel.\u201d This topographical description was doubtless perfectly\nintelligible to the chronicler\u2019s contemporaries, but it is no longer\npossible to fix exactly the locality of Hazziz or Jeruel. The ascent of\nHazziz has been identified with the Wady Husasa, which leads up from the\ncoast of the Dead Sea north of Engedi, in the direction of Tekoa; but the\nidentification is by no means certain.\n\nThe general situation, however, is fairly clear: the allied invaders would\ncome up from the coast into the highlands of Judah by one of the wadies\nleading inland; they were to be met by Jehoshaphat and his people on one\nof the \u201cwildernesses,\u201d or plateaus of pasture-land, in the neighbourhood\nof Tekoa.\n\nBut the Jews went forth, not as an army, but in order to be the passive\nspectators of a great manifestation of the power of Jehovah. They had no\nconcern with the numbers and prowess of their enemies; Jehovah Himself\nwould lay bare His mighty arm, and Judah should see that no foreign ally,\nno millions of native warriors, were necessary for their salvation: \u201cYe\nshall not need to fight in this battle; take up your position, stand still\nand see the deliverance of Jehovah with you, O Judah and Jerusalem.\u201d\n\nThus had Moses addressed Israel on the eve of the passage of the Red Sea.\nJehoshaphat and his people owned and honoured the Divine message as if\nJahaziel were another Moses; they prostrated themselves on the ground\nbefore Jehovah. The sons of Asaph had already been privileged to provide\nJehovah with His prophet; these Asaphites represented the Levitical clan\nof Gershom: but now the Kohathites, with their guild of singers, the sons\nof Korah, \u201cstood up to praise Jehovah, the God of Israel, with an\nexceeding loud voice,\u201d as the Levites sang when the foundations of the\nsecond Temple were laid, and when Ezra and Nehemiah made the people enter\ninto a new covenant with their God.\n\nAccordingly on the morrow the people rose early in the morning and went\nout to the wilderness of Tekoa, ten or twelve miles south of Jerusalem. In\nancient times generals were wont to make a set speech to their armies\nbefore they led them into battle, so Jehoshaphat addresses his subjects as\nthey pass out before him. He does not seek to make them confident in their\nown strength and prowess; he does not inflame their passions against Moab\nand Ammon, nor exhort them to be brave and remind them that they fight\nthis day for the ashes of their fathers and the temple of their God. Such\nan address would have been entirely out of place, because the Jews were\nnot going to fight at all. Jehoshaphat only bids them have faith in\nJehovah and His prophets. It is a curious anticipation of Pauline\nteaching. Judah is to be \u201csaved by faith\u201d from Moab and Ammon, as the\nChristian is delivered by faith from sin and its penalty. The incident\nmight almost seem to have been recorded in order to illustrate the truth\nthat St. Paul was to teach. It is strange that there is no reference to\nthis chapter in the epistles of St. Paul and St. James, and that the\nauthor of the Epistle to the Hebrews does not remind us how \u201cby faith\nJehoshaphat was delivered from Moab and Ammon.\u201d\n\nThere is no question of military order, no reference to the five great\ndivisions into which the armies of Judah and Benjamin are divided in chap.\nxvii. Here, as at Jericho, the captain of Israel is chiefly concerned to\nprovide musicians to lead his army. When David was arranging for the\nmusical services before the Ark, he took counsel with his captains. In\nthis unique military expedition there is no mention of captains; they were\nnot necessary, and if they were present, there was no opportunity for them\nto show their skill and prowess in battle. In an even more democratic\nspirit Jehoshaphat takes counsel with the people\u2014that is, probably makes\nsome proposition, which is accepted with universal acclamation.\n\nThe Levitical singers, dressed in the splendid robes(379) in which they\nofficiated at the Temple, were appointed to go before the people, and\noffer praises unto Jehovah, and sing the anthem, \u201cGive thanks unto\nJehovah, for His mercy endureth for ever.\u201d These words or their equivalent\nare the opening words, and the second clause the refrain, of the\npost-Exilic Psalms: cvi., cvii., cxviii., and cxxxvi. As the chronicler\nhas already ascribed Psalm cvi. to David, he possibly ascribes all four to\nDavid, and intends us to understand that one or all of them were sung by\nthe Levites on this occasion. Later Judaism was in the habit of denoting a\nbook or section of a book by its opening words.\n\nAnd so Judah, a pilgrim caravan rather than an army, went on to its\nDivinely appointed tryst with its enemies, and at its head the Levitical\nchoir sang the Temple hymns. It was not a campaign, but a sacred function,\non a much larger scale a procession such as may be seen winding its way,\nwith chants and incense, banners, images, and crucifixes, through the\nstreets of Catholic cities.\n\nMeanwhile Jehovah was preparing a spectacle to gladden the eyes of His\npeople and reward their implicit faith and exact obedience; He was working\nfor those who were waiting for Him. Though Judah was still far from its\nenemies, yet, like the trumpet at Jericho, the strain of praise and\nthanksgiving was the signal for the Divine intervention: \u201cWhen they began\nto sing and praise, Jehovah set liers in wait against the children of\nAmmon, Moab, and Mount Seir.\u201d Who were these liers in wait? They could not\nbe men of Judah: _they_ were not to fight, but to be passive spectators of\ntheir own deliverance. Did the allies set an ambush for Judah, and was it\nthus that they were afterwards led to mistake their own people for\nenemies? Or does the chronicler intend us to understand that these \u201cliers\nin wait\u201d were spirits; that the allied invaders were tricked and\nbewildered like the shipwrecked sailors in the _Tempest_; or that when\nthey came to the wilderness of Jeruel there fell upon them a spirit of\nmutual distrust, jealousy, and hatred, that had, as it were, been waiting\nfor them there? But, from whatever cause, a quarrel broke out amongst\nthem; and they were smitten. When Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite met,\nthere were many private and public feuds waiting their opportunity; and\nsuch confederates were as ready to quarrel among themselves as a group of\nHighland clans engaged in a Lowland foray. \u201cAmmon and Moab stood up\nagainst the inhabitants of Mount Seir utterly to slay and destroy them.\u201d\nBut even Ammon and Moab soon dissolved their alliance; and at last, partly\nmaddened by panic, partly intoxicated by a wild thirst for blood, a very\nBerserker frenzy, all ties of friendship and kindred were forgotten, and\nevery man\u2019s hand was against his brother. \u201cWhen they had made an end of\nthe inhabitants of Seir, every one helped to destroy another.\u201d\n\nWhile this tragedy was enacting, and the air was rent with the cruel yells\nof that death struggle, Jehoshaphat and his people moved on in tranquil\npilgrimage to the cheerful sound of the songs of Zion. At last they\nreached an eminence, perhaps the long, low summit of some ridge\noverlooking the plateau of Jeruel. When they had gained this watchtower of\nthe wilderness, the ghastly scene burst upon their gaze. Jehovah had kept\nHis word: they had found their enemy. They \u201clooked upon the multitude,\u201d\nall those hordes of heathen tribes that had filled them with terror and\ndismay. They were harmless enough now: the Jews saw nothing but \u201cdead\nbodies fallen to the earth\u201d; and in that Aceldama lay all the multitude of\nprofane invaders who had dared to violate the sanctity of the Promised\nLand: \u201cThere were none that escaped.\u201d So had Israel looked back after\ncrossing the Red Sea and seen the corpses of the Egyptians washed up on\nthe shore.(380) So when the angel of Jehovah smote Sennacherib,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cLike the leaves of the forest when autumn hath blown,\n    That host on the morrow lay withered and strown.\u201d\n\n\nThere is no touch of pity for the wretched victims of their own sins.\nGreeks of every city and tribe could feel the pathos of the tragic end of\nthe Athenian expedition against Syracuse; but the Jews had no ruth for the\nkindred tribes that dwelt along their frontier, and the age of the\nchronicler had not yet learnt that Jehovah had either tenderness or\ncompassion for the enemies of Israel.\n\nThe spectators of this carnage\u2014we cannot call them victors\u2014did not neglect\nto profit to the utmost by their great opportunity. They spent three days\nin stripping the dead bodies; and as Orientals delight in jewelled weapons\nand costly garments, and their chiefs take the field with barbaric\nostentation of wealth, the spoil was both valuable and abundant: \u201criches,\nand raiment,(381) and precious jewels, ... more than they could carry\naway.\u201d\n\nIn collecting the spoil, the Jews had become dispersed through all the\nwide area over which the fighting between the confederates must have\nextended; but on the fourth day they gathered together again in a\nneighbouring valley and gave solemn thanks for their deliverance: \u201cThere\nthey blessed Jehovah; therefore the name of that place was called the\nvalley of Berachah unto this day.\u201d West of Tekoa,(382) not too far from\nthe scene of carnage, a ruin and a wady still bear the name \u201cBereikut\u201d;\nand doubtless in the chronicler\u2019s time the valley was called Berachah, and\nlocal tradition furnished our author with this explanation of the origin\nof the name.\n\nWhen the spoil was all collected, they returned to Jerusalem as they came,\nin solemn procession, headed, no doubt, by the Levites, with psalteries,\nand harps, and trumpets. They came back to the scene of their anxious\nsupplications: to the house of Jehovah. But yesterday, as it were, they\nhad assembled before Jehovah, terror-stricken at the report of an\nirresistible host of invaders; and to-day their enemies were utterly\ndestroyed. They had experienced a deliverance that might rank with the\nExodus; and as at that former deliverance they had spoiled the Egyptians,\nso now they had returned laden with the plunder of Moab, Ammon, and Edom.\nAnd all their neighbours were smitten with fear when they heard of the\nawful ruin which Jehovah had brought upon these enemies of Israel. No one\nwould dare to invade a country where Jehovah laid a ghostly ambush of\nliers in wait for the enemies of His people. The realm of Jehoshaphat was\nquiet, not because he was protected by powerful allies or by the swords of\nhis numerous and valiant soldiers, but because Judah had become another\nEden, and cherubim with flaming swords guarded the frontier on every hand,\nand \u201chis God gave him rest round about.\u201d\n\nThen follow the regular summary and conclusion of the history of the reign\ntaken from the book of Kings, with the usual alterations in the reference\nto further sources of information. We are told here, in direct\ncontradiction to xvii. 6 and to the whole tenor of the previous chapters,\nthat the high places were not taken away, another illustration of the\nslight importance the chronicler attached to accuracy in details. He\neither overlooks the contradiction between passages borrowed from\ndifferent sources, or else does not think it worth while to harmonise his\ninconsistent materials.\n\nBut after the narrative of the reign is thus formally closed the\nchronicler inserts a postscript, perhaps by a kind of after-thought. The\nbook of Kings narrates(383) how Jehoshaphat made ships to go to Ophir for\ngold, but they were broken at Ezion-geber; then Ahaziah the son of Ahab\nproposed to enter into partnership with Jehoshaphat, and the latter\nrejected his proposal. As we have seen, the chronicler\u2019s theory of\nretribution required some reason why so pious a king experienced\nmisfortune. What sin had Jehoshaphat committed to deserve to have his\nships broken? The chronicler has a new version of the story, which\nprovides an answer to this question. Jehoshaphat did not build any ships\nby himself; his unfortunate navy was constructed in partnership with\nAhaziah; and accordingly the prophet Eliezer rebuked him for allying\nhimself a second time with a wicked king of Israel, and announced the\ncoming wreck of the ships. And so it came about that the ships were\nbroken, and the shadow of Divine displeasure rested on the last days of\nJehoshaphat.\n\nWe have next to notice the chronicler\u2019s most important omissions. The book\nof Kings narrates another alliance of Jehoshaphat with Jehoram, king of\nIsrael, like his alliances with Ahab and Ahaziah. The narrative of this\nincident closely resembles that of the earlier joint expedition to\nRamoth-gilead. As then Jehoshaphat marched out with Ahab, so now he\naccompanies Ahab\u2019s son Jehoram, taking with him his subject ally the king\nof Edom. Here also a prophet appears upon the scene; but on this occasion\nElisha addresses no rebuke to Jehoshaphat for his alliance with Israel,\nbut treats him with marked respect: and the allied army wins a great\nvictory. If this narrative had been included in Chronicles, the reign of\nJehoshaphat would not have afforded an altogether satisfactory\nillustration of the main lesson which the chronicler intended it to teach.\n\nThis main lesson was that the chosen people should not look for protection\nagainst their enemies either to foreign alliances or to their own military\nstrength, but solely to the grace and omnipotence of Jehovah. One negative\naspect of this principle has been enforced by the condemnation of Asa\u2019s\nalliance with Syria and Jehoshaphat\u2019s with Ahab and Ahaziah. Later on the\nuselessness of an army apart from Jehovah is shown in the defeat of \u201cthe\ngreat host\u201d of Joash by \u201ca small company\u201d of Syrians.(384) The positive\naspect has been partially illustrated by the signal victories of Abijah\nand Asa against overwhelming odds and without the help of any foreign\nallies. But these were partial and unsatisfactory illustrations: Jehovah\nvouchsafed to share the glory of these victories with great armies that\nwere numbered by the hundred thousand. And after all, the odds were not so\nvery overwhelming. Scores of parallels may be found in which the odds were\nmuch greater. In the case of vast Oriental hosts a superiority of two to\none might easily be counterbalanced by discipline and valour in the\nsmaller army.\n\nThe peculiar value to the chronicler of the deliverance from Moab, Ammon,\nand the Meunim lay in the fact that no human arm divided the glory with\nJehovah. It was shown conclusively not merely that Judah could safely be\ncontented with an army smaller than those of its neighbours, but that\nJudah would be equally safe with no army at all. We feel that this lesson\nis taught with added force when we remember that Jehoshaphat had a larger\narmy than is ascribed to any Israelite or Jewish king after David. Yet he\nplaces no confidence in his eleven hundred and sixty thousand warriors,\nand he is not allowed to make any use of them. In the case of a king with\nsmall military resources, to trust in Jehovah might be merely making a\nvirtue of necessity; but if Jehoshaphat, with his immense army, felt that\nhis only real help was in his God, the example furnished an _\u00e0 fortiori_\nargument which would conclusively show that it was always the duty and\nprivilege of the Jews to say with the Psalmist, \u201cSome trust in chariots,\nand some in horses; but we will remember the name of Jehovah our\nGod.\u201d(385) The ancient literature of Israel furnished other illustrations\nof the principle: at the Red Sea the Israelites had been delivered without\nany exercise of their own warlike prowess; at Jericho, as at Jeruel, the\nenemy had been completely overthrown by Jehovah before His people rushed\nupon the spoil; and the same direct Divine intervention saved Jerusalem\nfrom Sennacherib. But the later history of the Jews had been a series of\nillustrations of enforced dependence upon Jehovah. A little\nsemi-ecclesiastical community inhabiting a small province that passed from\none great power to another like a counter in the game of international\npolitics had no choice but to trust in Jehovah, if it were in any way to\nmaintain its self-respect. For this community of the second Temple to have\nhad confidence in its sword and bow would have seemed equally absurd to\nthe Jews and to their Persian and Greek masters.\n\nWhen they were thus helpless, Jehovah wrought for Israel, as He had\ndestroyed the enemies of Jehoshaphat in the wilderness of Jeruel. The Jews\nstood still and saw the working out of their deliverance; great empires\nwrestled together like Moab, Ammon, and Edom, in the agony of the death\nstruggle: and over all the tumult of battle Israel heard the voice of\nJehovah, \u201cThe battle is not yours, but God\u2019s; ... set yourselves, stand ye\nstill, and see the deliverance of Jehovah with you, O Judah and\nJerusalem.\u201d Before their eyes there passed the scenes of that great drama\nwhich for a time gave Western Asia Aryan instead of Semitic masters. For\nthem the whole action had but one meaning: without calling Israel into the\nfield, Jehovah was devoting to destruction the enemies of His people and\nopening up a way for His redeemed to return, like Jehoshaphat\u2019s\nprocession, to the Holy City and the Temple. The long series of wars\nbecame a wager of battle, in which Israel, herself a passive spectator,\nappeared by her Divine Champion; and the assured issue was her triumphant\nvindication and restoration to her ancient throne in Zion.\n\nAfter the Restoration God\u2019s protecting providence asked no armed\nassistance from Judah. The mandates of a distant court authorised the\nrebuilding of the Temple and the fortifying of the city. The Jews solaced\ntheir national pride and found consolation for their weakness and\nsubjection in the thought that their ostensible masters were in reality\nonly the instruments which Jehovah used to provide for the security and\nprosperity of His children.\n\nWe have already noticed that this philosophy of history is not peculiar to\nIsrael. Every nation has a similar system, and regards its own interests\nas the supreme care of Providence. We have seen, too, that moral\ninfluences have controlled and checkmated material forces; God has fought\nagainst the biggest battalions. Similarly the Jews are not the only people\nfor whom deliverances have been worked out almost without any co-operation\non their own part. It was not a negro revolt, for instance, that set free\nthe slaves of our colonies or of the Southern States. Italy regained her\nEternal City as an incidental effect of a great war in which she herself\ntook no part. Important political movements and great struggles involve\nconsequences equally unforeseen and unintended by the chief actors in\nthese dramas, consequences which would seem to them insignificant compared\nwith more obvious results. Some obscure nation almost ready to perish is\ngiven a respite, a breathing space, in which it gathers strength; instead\nof losing its separate existence, it endures till time and opportunity\nmake it one of the ruling influences in the world\u2019s history: some Geneva\nor Wittenberg becomes, just at the right time, a secure refuge and\nvantage-ground for one of the Lord\u2019s prophets. Our understanding of what\nGod is doing in our time and our hopes for what He may yet do will indeed\nbe small, if we think that God can do nothing for our cause unless our\nbanner flies in the forefront of the battle, and the war-cry is \u201cThe sword\nof Gideon!\u201d as well as \u201cThe sword of Jehovah!\u201d There will be many battles\nfought in which we shall strike no blow and yet be privileged to divide\nthe spoil. We sometimes \u201cstand still and see the salvation of Jehovah.\u201d\n\nThe chronicler has found disciples in these latter days of a kindlier\nspirit and more catholic sympathies. He and they have reached their common\ndoctrines by different paths, but the chronicler teaches non-resistance as\nclearly as the Society of Friends. \u201cWhen you have fully yielded yourself\nto the Divine teaching,\u201d he says, \u201cyou will neither fight yourself nor ask\nothers to fight for you; you will simply stand still and watch a Divine\nprovidence protecting you and destroying your enemies.\u201d The Friends could\nalmost echo this teaching, not perhaps laying quite so much stress on the\ndestruction of the enemy, though among the visions of the earlier Friends\nthere were many that revealed the coming judgments of the Lord; and the\nmodern enthusiast is still apt to consider that his enemies, are the\nLord\u2019s enemies and to call the gratification of his own revengeful spirit\na vindicating of the honour of the Lord and a satisfaction of outraged\njustice.\n\nIf the chronicler had lived to-day, the history of the Society of Friends\nmight have furnished him with illustrations almost as apt as the\ndestruction of the allied invaders of Judah. He would have rejoiced to\ntell us how a people that repudiated any resort to violence succeeded in\nconciliating savage tribes and founding the flourishing colony of\nPennsylvania, and would have seen the hand of the Lord in the wealth and\nhonour that have been accorded to a once despised and persecuted sect.\n\nWe should be passing to matters that were still beyond the chronicler\u2019s\nhorizon, if we were to connect his teaching with our Lord\u2019s injunction,\n\u201cWhosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other\nalso.\u201d Such a sentiment scarcely harmonises with the three days\u2019 stripping\nof dead bodies in the wilderness of Jeruel. But though the chronicler\u2019s\nmotives for non-resistance were not touched and softened with the Divine\ngentleness of Jesus of Nazareth, and his object was not to persuade his\nhearers to patient endurance of wrong, yet he had conceived the\npossibility of a mighty faith that could put its fortunes unreservedly\ninto the hands of God and trust Him with the issues. If we are ever to be\nworthy citizens of the kingdom of our Lord, it can only be by the\nsustaining power and inspiring influence of a like faith.\n\nWhen we come to ask how far the people for whom he wrote responded to his\nteaching and carried it into practical life, we are met with one of the\nmany instances of the grim irony of history. Probably the chronicler\u2019s\nglowing vision of peaceful security, guarded on every hand by legions of\nangels, was partly inspired by the comparative prosperity of the time at\nwhich he wrote. Other considerations combine with this to suggest that the\ncomposition of his work beguiled the happy leisure of one of the brighter\nintervals between Ezra and the Maccabees.\n\nCircumstances were soon to test the readiness of the Jews, in times of\nnational danger, to observe the attitude of passive spectators and wait\nfor a Divine deliverance. It was not altogether in this spirit that the\npriests met the savage persecutions of Antiochus. They made no vain\nattempts to exorcise this evil spirit with hymns, and psalteries, and\nharps, and trumpets; but the priest Mattathias and his sons slew the\nking\u2019s commissioner and raised the standard of armed revolt. We do indeed\nfind indications of something like obedience to the chronicler\u2019s\nprinciples. A body of the revolted Jews were attacked on the Sabbath Day;\nthey made no attempt to defend themselves: \u201cWhen they gave them battle\nwith all speed, they answered them not, neither cast they a stone at them,\nnor stopped the places where they lay hid, ... and their enemies rose up\nagainst them on the sabbath, and slew them, with their wives, and their\nchildren, and their cattle, to the number of a thousand people.\u201d(386) No\nDivine intervention rewarded this devoted faith, nor apparently did the\nJews expect it, for they had said, \u201cLet us die all in our innocency;\nheaven and earth shall testify for us that ye put us to death wrongfully.\u201d\nThis is, after all, a higher note than that of Chronicles: obedience may\nnot bring invariable reward; nevertheless the faithful will not swerve\nfrom their loyalty. But the priestly leaders of the people looked with no\nfavourable eye upon this offering up of human hecatombs in honour of the\nsanctity of the Sabbath. They were not prepared to die passively; and, as\nrepresentatives of Jehovah and of the nation for the time being, they\ndecreed that henceforth they would fight against those who attacked them,\neven on the Sabbath Day. Warfare on these more secular principles was\ncrowned with that visible success which the chronicler regarded as the\nmanifest sign of Divine approval; and a dynasty of royal priests filled\nthe throne and led the armies of Israel, and assured and strengthened\ntheir authority by intrigues and alliances with every heathen sovereign\nwithin their reach.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V. Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah: The Consequences of a Foreign\nMarriage. 2 Chron. xxi.-xxiii.\n\n\nThe accession of Jehoram is one of the instances in which a wicked son\nsucceeded to a conspicuously pious father, but in this case there is no\ndifficulty in explaining the phenomenon: the depraved character and evil\ndeeds of Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah are at once accounted for when we\nremember that they were respectively the son-in-law, grandson, and\ndaughter of Ahab, and possibly of Jezebel. If, however, Jezebel were\nreally the mother of Athaliah, it is difficult to believe that the\nchronicler understood or at any rate realised the fact. In the books of\nEzra and Nehemiah the chronicler lays great stress upon the iniquity and\ninexpediency of marriage with strange wives, and he has been careful to\ninsert a note into the history of Jehoshaphat to call attention to the\nfact that the king of Judah had joined affinity with Ahab. If he had\nunderstood that this implied joining affinity with a Ph\u0153nician devotee of\nBaal, this significant fact would not have been passed over in silence.\nMoreover, the names Athaliah and Ahaziah are both compounded with the\nsacred name Jehovah. A Ph\u0153nician Baal-worshipper may very well have been\nsufficiently eclectic to make such use of the name sacred to the family\ninto which she married, but on the whole those names rather tell against\nthe descent of their owners from Jezebel and her Zidonian ancestors.\n\nWe have seen that, after giving the concluding formula for the reign of\nJehoshaphat, the chronicler adds a postscript narrating an incident\ndiscreditable to the king. Similarly he prefaces the introductory formula\nfor the reign of Jehoram by inserting a cruel deed of the new king. Before\ntelling us Jehoram\u2019s age at his accession and the length of his reign, the\nchronicler relates(387) the steps taken by Jehoram to secure himself upon\nhis throne. Jehoshaphat, like Rehoboam, had disposed of his numerous sons\nin the fenced cities of Judah, and had sought to make them quiet and\ncontented by providing largely for their material welfare: \u201cTheir father\ngave them great gifts: silver, gold, and precious things, with fenced\ncities in Judah.\u201d The sanguine judgment of paternal affection might expect\nthat these gifts would make his younger sons loyal and devoted subjects of\ntheir elder brother; but Jehoram, not without reason, feared that treasure\nand cities might supply the means for a revolt, or that Judah might be\nsplit up into a number of small principalities. Accordingly when he had\nstrengthened himself he slew all his brethren with the sword, and with\nthem those princes of Israel whom he suspected of attachment to his other\nvictims. He was following the precedent set by Solomon when he ordered the\nexecution of Adonijah; and, indeed, the slaughter by a new sovereign of\nall those near relations who might possibly dispute his claim to the\nthrone has usually been considered in the East to be a painful but\nnecessary and perfectly justifiable act, being, in fact, regarded in much\nthe same light as the drowning of superfluous kittens in domestic circles.\nProbably this episode is placed before the introductory formula for the\nreign because until these possible rivals were removed Jehoram\u2019s tenure of\nthe throne was altogether unsafe.\n\nFor the next few verses(388) the narrative follows the book of Kings with\nscarcely any alteration, and states the evil character of the new reign,\naccounting for Jehoram\u2019s depravity by his marriage with a daughter of\nAhab. The successful revolt of Edom from Judah is next given, and the\nchronicler adds a note of his own to the effect that Jehoram experienced\nthese reverses because he had forsaken Jehovah, the God of his fathers.\n\nThen the chronicler proceeds(389) to describe further sins and misfortunes\nof Jehoram. He mentions definitely, what is doubtless implied by the book\nof Kings, that Jehoram made high places in the cities of Judah(390) and\nseduced the people into taking part in a corrupt worship. The Divine\ncondemnation of the king\u2019s wrong-doing came from an unexpected quarter and\nin an unusual fashion. The other prophetic messages specially recorded by\nthe chronicler were uttered by prophets of Judah, some apparently\nreceiving their inspiration for one particular occasion. The prophet who\nrebuked Jehoram was no less distinguished a personage than the great\nIsraelite Elijah, who, according to the book of Kings, had long since been\ntranslated to heaven. In the older narrative Elijah\u2019s work is exclusively\nconfined to the northern kingdom. But the chronicler entirely ignores\nElijah, except when his history becomes connected for a moment with that\nof the house of David.\n\nThe other prophets of Judah delivered their messages by word of mouth, but\nthis communication is made by means of \u201ca writing.\u201d This, however, is not\nwithout parallel: Jeremiah sent a letter to the captives in Babylon, and\nalso sent a written collection of his prophecies to Jehoiakim.(391) In the\nlatter case, however, the prophecies had been originally promulgated by\nword of mouth.\n\nElijah writes in the name of Jehovah, the God of David, and condemns\nJehoram because he was not walking in the ways of Asa and Jehoshaphat, but\nin the ways of the kings of Israel and the house of Ahab. It is pleasant\nto find that, in spite of the sins which marked the latter days of Asa and\nJehoshaphat, their \u201cways\u201d were as a whole such as could be held up as an\nexample by the prophet of Jehovah. Here and elsewhere God appeals to the\nbetter feelings that spring from pride of birth. _Noblesse oblige._\nJehoram held his throne as representative of the house of David, and was\nproud to trace his descent to the founder of the Israelite monarchy and to\ninherit the glory of the great reigns of Asa and Jehoshaphat; but this\npride of race implied that to depart from their ways was dishonourable\napostacy. There is no more pitiful spectacle than an effeminate libertine\npluming himself on his noble ancestry.\n\nElijah further rebukes Jehoram for the massacre of his brethren, who were\nbetter than himself. They had all grown up at their father\u2019s court, and\ntill the other brethren were put in possession of their fenced cities had\nbeen under the same influences. It is the husband of Ahab\u2019s daughter who\nis worse than all the rest; the influence of an unsuitable marriage has\nalready begun to show itself. Indeed, in view of Athaliah\u2019s subsequent\nhistory, we do her no injustice by supposing that, like Jezebel and Lady\nMacbeth, she had suggested her husband\u2019s crime. The fact that Jehoram\u2019s\nbrethren were better men than himself adds to his guilt morally, but this\nundesirable superiority of the other princes of the blood to the reigning\nsovereign would seem to Jehoram and his advisers an additional reason for\nputting them out of the way; the massacre was an urgent political\nnecessity.\n\n\n    \u201cTruly the tender mercies of the weak,\n    As of the wicked, are but cruel.\u201d\n\n\nThere is nothing so cruel as the terror of a selfish man. The Inquisition\nis the measure not only of the inhumanity, but also of the weakness, of\nthe medi\u00e6val Church; and the massacre of St. Bartholomew was due to the\nfeebleness of Charles IX. as well as to the \u201crevenge or the blind instinct\nof self-preservation\u201d(392) of Mary de Medici.\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s condemnation of Jehoram\u2019s massacre marks the superiority\nof the standard of later Judaism to the current Oriental morality. For his\nsins Jehoram was to be punished by sore disease and by a great \u201cplague\u201d\nwhich would fall upon his people, and his wives, and his children, and all\nhis substance. From the following verses we see that \u201cplague,\u201d here as in\nthe case of some of the plagues of Egypt, has the sense of calamity\ngenerally, and not the narrower meaning of pestilence. This plague took\nthe form of an invasion of the Philistines and of the Arabians \u201cwhich are\nbeside the Ethiopians.\u201d Divine inspiration prompted them to attack Judah;\nJehovah stirred up their spirit against Jehoram. Probably here, as in the\nstory of Zerah, the term Ethiopians is used loosely for the Egyptians, in\nwhich case the Arabs in question would be inhabitants of the desert\nbetween the south of Palestine and Egypt, and would thus be neighbours of\ntheir Philistine allies.\n\nThese marauding bands succeeded where the huge hosts of Zerah had failed;\nthey broke into Judah, and carried off all the king\u2019s treasure, together\nwith his sons and his wives, only leaving him his youngest son: Jehoahaz\nor Ahaziah. They afterwards slew the princes they had taken captive.(393)\nThe common people would scarcely suffer less severely than their king.\nJehoram himself was reserved for special personal punishment: Jehovah\nsmote him with a sore disease; and, like Asa, he lingered for two years\nand then died. The people were so impressed by his wickedness that \u201cthey\nmade no burning for him, like the burning of his fathers,\u201d whereas they\nhad made a very great burning for Asa.(394)\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s account of the reign of Ahaziah(395) does not differ\nmaterially from that given by the book of Kings, though it is considerably\nabridged, and there are other minor alterations. The chronicler sets forth\neven more emphatically than the earlier history the evil influence of\nAthaliah and her Israelite kinsfolk over Ahaziah\u2019s short reign of one\nyear. The story of his visit to Jehoram, king of Israel, and the murder of\nthe two kings by Jehu, is very much abridged. The chronicler carefully\nomits all reference to Elisha, according to his usual principle of\nignoring the religious life of Northern Israel; but he expressly tells us\nthat, like Jehoshaphat, Ahaziah suffered for consorting with the house of\nOmri: \u201cHis destruction or treading down was of God in that he went unto\nJehoram.\u201d Our English versions have carefully reproduced an ambiguity in\nthe original; but it seems probable that the chronicler does not mean that\nvisiting Jehoram in his illness was a flagrant offence which God punished\nwith death, but rather that, to punish Ahaziah for his imitation of the\nevil-doings of the house of Omri,(396) God allowed him to visit Jehoram in\norder that he might share the fate of the Israelite king.\n\nThe book of Kings had stated that Jehu slew forty-two brethren of Ahaziah.\nIt is, of course, perfectly allowable to take \u201cbrethren\u201d in the general\nsense of \u201ckinsmen\u201d; but as the chronicler had recently mentioned the\nmassacre of all Ahaziah\u2019s brethren, he avoids even the appearance of a\ncontradiction by substituting \u201csons of the brethren of Ahaziah\u201d for\nbrethren. This alteration introduces new difficulties, but these\ndifficulties simply illustrate the general confusion of numbers and ages\nwhich characterises the narrative at this point. In connection with the\nburial of Ahaziah, it may be noted that the popular recollection of\nJehoshaphat endorsed the favourable judgment contained in the \u201cwriting of\nElijah\u201d: \u201cThey said\u201d of Ahaziah, \u201cHe is the son of Jehoshaphat, who sought\nJehovah with all his heart.\u201d\n\nThe chronicler next narrates Athaliah\u2019s murder of the seed royal of Judah\nand her usurpation of the throne of David, in terms almost identical with\nthose of the narrative in the book of Kings. But his previous additions\nand modifications are hard to reconcile with the account he here borrows\nfrom his ancient authority. According to the chronicler, Jehoram had\nmassacred all the other sons of Jehoshaphat, and the Arabians had slain\nall Jehoram\u2019s sons except Ahaziah, and Jehu had slain their sons; so that\nAhaziah was the only living descendant in the male line of his grandfather\nJehoshaphat; he himself apparently died at the age of twenty-three. It is\nintelligible enough that he should have a son Joash and possibly other\nsons; but still it is difficult to understand where Athaliah found \u201call\nthe seed royal\u201d and \u201cthe king\u2019s sons\u201d whom she put to death. It is at any\nrate clear that Jehoram\u2019s slaughter of his brethren met with an\nappropriate punishment: all his own sons and grandsons were similarly\nslain, except the child Joash.\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s narrative of the revolution by which Athaliah was slain,\nand the throne recovered for the house of David in the person of Joash,\nfollows substantially the earlier history, the chief difference being, as\nwe have already noticed,(397) that the chronicler substitutes the\nLevitical guard of the second Temple for the bodyguard of foreign\nmercenaries who were the actual agents in this revolution.\n\nA distinguished authority on European history is fond of pointing to the\nevil effects of royal marriages as one of the chief drawbacks to the\nmonarchical system of government. A crown may at any time devolve upon a\nwoman, and by her marriage with a powerful reigning prince her country may\nvirtually be subjected to a foreign yoke. If it happens that the new\nsovereign professes a different religion from that of his wife\u2019s subjects,\nthe evils arising from the marriage are seriously aggravated. Some such\nfate befell the Netherlands as the result of the marriage of Mary of\nBurgundy with the Emperor Maximilian, and England was only saved from the\ndanger of transference to Catholic dominion by the caution and patriotism\nof Queen Elizabeth.\n\nAthaliah\u2019s usurpation was a bold attempt to reverse the usual process and\ntransfer the husband\u2019s dominions to the authority and faith of the wife\u2019s\nfamily. It is probable that Athaliah\u2019s permanent success would have led to\nthe absorption of Judah in the northern kingdom. This last misfortune was\naverted by the energy and courage of Jehoiada, but in the meantime the\nhalf-heathen queen had succeeded in causing untold harm and suffering to\nher adopted country. Our own history furnishes numerous illustrations of\nthe evil influences that come in the train of foreign queens. Edward II.\nsuffered grievously at the hands of his French queen; Henry VI.\u2019s wife,\nMargaret of Anjou, contributed considerably to the prolonged bitterness of\nthe struggle between York and Lancaster; and to Henry VIII.\u2019s marriage\nwith Catherine of Aragon the country owed the miseries and persecutions\ninflicted by Mary Tudor. But, on the other hand, many of the foreign\nprincesses who have shared the English throne have won the lasting\ngratitude of the nation. A French queen of Kent, for instance, opened the\nway for Augustine\u2019s mission to England.\n\nBut no foreign queen of England has had the opportunities for mischief\nthat were enjoyed and fully utilised by Athaliah. She corrupted her\nhusband and her son, and she was probably at once the instigator of their\ncrimes and the instrument of their punishment. By corrupting the rulers of\nJudah and by her own misgovernment, she exercised an evil influence over\nthe nation; and as the people suffered, not for their sins only, but also\nfor those of their kings, Athaliah brought misfortunes and calamity upon\nJudah. Unfortunately such experiences are not confined to royal families;\nthe peace and honour, and prosperity of godly families in all ranks of\nlife have been disturbed and often destroyed by the marriage of one of\ntheir members with a woman of alien spirit and temperament. Here is a very\ngeneral and practical application of the chronicler\u2019s objection to\nintercourse with the house of Omri.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI. Joash and Amaziah. 2 Chron. xxiv.-xxv.\n\n\nFor Chronicles, as for the book of Kings, the main interest of the reign\nof Joash is the repairing of the Temple; but the later narrative\nintroduces modifications which give a somewhat different complexion to the\nstory. Both authorities tell us that Joash did that which was right in the\neyes of Jehovah all the days of Jehoiada, but the book of Kings\nimmediately adds that \u201cthe high places were not taken away: the people\nstill sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places.\u201d(398) Seeing that\nJehoiada exercised the royal authority during the minority of Joash, this\ntoleration of the high places must have had the sanction of the\nhigh-priest. Now the chronicler and his contemporaries had been educated\nin the belief that the Pentateuch was the ecclesiastical code of the\nmonarchy; they found it impossible to credit a statement that the\nhigh-priest had sanctioned any other sanctuary besides the temple of Zion;\naccordingly they omitted the verse in question.\n\nIn the earlier narrative of the repairing of the Temple the priests are\nordered by Joash to use certain sacred dues and offerings to repair the\nbreaches of the house; but after some time had elapsed it was found that\nthe breaches had not been repaired: and when Joash remonstrated with the\npriests, they flatly refused to have anything to do with the repairs or\nwith receiving funds for the purpose. Their objections were, however,\noverruled; and Jehoiada placed beside the altar a chest with a hole in the\nlid, into which \u201cthe priests put all the money that was brought into the\nhouse of Jehovah.\u201d(399) When it was sufficiently full, the king\u2019s scribe\nand the high-priest counted the money, and put it up in bags.\n\nThere were several points in this earlier narrative which would have\nfurnished very inconvenient precedents, and were so much out of keeping\nwith the ideas and practices of the second Temple that, by the time the\nchronicler wrote, a new and more intelligible version of the story was\ncurrent among the ministers of the Temple. To begin with, there was an\nomission which would have grated very unpleasantly on the feelings of the\nchronicler. In this long narrative, wholly taken up with the affairs of\nthe Temple, nothing is said about the Levites. The collecting and\nreceiving of money might well be supposed to belong to them; and\naccordingly in Chronicles the Levites are first associated with the\npriests in this matter, and then the priests drop out of the narrative,\nand the Levites alone carry out the financial arrangements.\n\nAgain, it might be understood from the book of Kings that sacred dues and\nofferings, which formed the revenue of the priests and Levites, were\ndiverted by the king\u2019s orders to the repair of the fabric. The chronicler\nwas naturally anxious that there should be no mistake on this point; the\nambiguous phrases are omitted, and it is plainly indicated that funds were\nraised for the repairs by means of a special tax ordained by Moses. Joash\n\u201cassembled the priests and the Levites, and said to them, Go out into the\ncities of Judah, and gather of all Israel money to repair the house of\nyour God from year to year, and see that ye hasten the matter. Howbeit the\nLevites hastened it not.\u201d The remissness of the priests in the original\nnarrative is here very faithfully and candidly transferred to the Levites.\nThen, as in the book of Kings, Joash remonstrates with Jehoiada, but the\nterms of his remonstrance are altogether different: here he complains\nbecause the Levites have not been required \u201cto bring in out of Judah and\nout of Jerusalem the tax appointed by Moses the servant of Jehovah and by\nthe congregation of Israel for the tent of the testimony,\u201d_i.e._, the\nTabernacle, containing the Ark and the tables of the Law. The reference\napparently is to the law(400) that when a census was taken a poll-tax of a\nhalf-shekel a head should be paid for the service of the Tabernacle. As\none of the main uses of a census was to facilitate the raising of taxes,\nthis law might not unfairly be interpreted to mean that when occasion\narose, or perhaps even every year, a census should be taken in order that\nthis poll-tax might be levied. Nehemiah arranged for a yearly poll-tax of\na third of a shekel for the incidental expenses of the Temple.(401) Here,\nhowever, the half-shekel prescribed in Exodus is intended; and it should\nbe observed that this poll-tax was to be levied, not once only but \u201cfrom\nyear to year.\u201d The chronicler then inserts a note to explain why these\nrepairs were necessary: \u201cThe sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had\nbroken up the house of God; and also all the dedicated things of the house\nof Jehovah they bestowed upon the Baals.\u201d Here we are confronted with a\nfurther difficulty. All Jehoram\u2019s sons except Ahaziah were murdered by the\nArabs in their father\u2019s life-time. Who are these \u201csons of Athaliah\u201d who\nbroke up the Temple? Jehoram was about thirty-seven when his sons were\nmassacred, so that some of them may have been old enough to break up the\nTemple. One would think that \u201cthe dedicated things\u201d might have been\nrecovered for Jehovah when Athaliah was overthrown; but possibly, when the\npeople retaliated by breaking into the house of Baal, there were Achans\namong them, who appropriated the plunder.\n\nHaving remonstrated with Jehoiada, the king took matters into his own\nhands; and he, not Jehoiada, had a chest made and placed, not beside the\naltar\u2014such an arrangement savoured of profanity\u2014but without at the gate of\nthe Temple. This little touch is very suggestive. The noise and bustle of\npaying over money, receiving it, and putting it into the chest, would have\nmingled distractingly with the solemn ritual of sacrifice. In modern times\nthe tinkle of threepenny pieces often tends to mar the effect of an\nimpressive appeal and to disturb the quiet influences of a communion\nservice. The Scotch arrangement, by which a plate covered with a fair\nwhite cloth is placed in the porch of a church and guarded by two modern\nLevites or elders, is much more in accordance with Chronicles.\n\nThen, instead of sending out Levites to collect the tax, proclamation was\nmade that the people themselves should bring their offerings. Obedience\napparently was made a matter of conscience, not of solicitation. Perhaps\nit was because the Levites felt that sacred dues should be given freely\nthat they were not forward to make yearly tax-collecting expeditions. At\nany rate, the new method was signally successful. Day after day the\nprinces and people gladly brought their offerings, and money was gathered\nin abundance. Other passages suggest that the chronicler was not always\ninclined to trust to the spontaneous generosity of the people for the\nsupport of the priests and Levites; but he plainly recognised that\nfree-will offerings are more excellent than the donations which are\npainfully extracted by the yearly visits of official collectors. He would\nprobably have sympathised with the abolition of pew-rents.\n\nAs in the book of Kings, the chest was emptied at suitable intervals; but\ninstead of the high-priest being associated with the king\u2019s scribe, as if\nthey were on a level and both of them officials of the royal court, the\nchief priest\u2019s _officer_ assists the king\u2019s _scribe_, so that the chief\npriest is placed on a level with the king himself.\n\nThe details of the repairs in the two narratives differ considerably in\nform, but for the most part agree in substance; the only striking point is\nthat they are apparently at variance as to whether vessels of silver or\ngold were or were not made for the renovated Temple.\n\nThen follows the account(402) of the ingratitude and apostacy of Joash and\nhis people. As long as Jehoiada lived, the services of the Temple were\nregularly performed, and Judah remained faithful to its God; but at last\nhe died, full of days: a hundred and thirty years old. In his life-time he\nhad exercised royal authority, and when he died he was buried like a king:\n\u201cThey buried him in the city of David among the kings, because he had done\ngood in Israel and toward God and His house.\u201d(403) Like Nero when he shook\noff the control of Seneca and Burrhus, Joash changed his policy as soon as\nJehoiada was dead. Apparently he was a weak character, always following\nsome one\u2019s leading. His freedom from the influence that had made his early\nreign decent and honourable was not, as in Nero\u2019s case, his own act. The\nchange of policy was adopted at the suggestion of the princes of Judah.\nKings, princes, and people fell back into the old wickedness; they forsook\nthe Temple and served idols. Yet Jehovah did not readily give them up to\ntheir own folly, nor hastily inflict punishment; He sent, not one prophet,\nbut many, to bring them back to Himself, but they would not hearken. At\nlast Jehovah made one last effort to win Joash back; this time He chose\nfor His messenger a priest who had special personal claims on the\nfavourable attention of the king. The prophet was Zechariah the son of\nJehoiada, to whom Joash owed his life and his throne. The name was a\nfavourite one in Israel, and was borne by two other prophets besides the\nson of Jehoiada. Its very etymology constituted an appeal to the\nconscience of Joash: it is compounded of the sacred name and a root\nmeaning \u201cto remember\u201d. The Jews were adepts at extracting from such a\ncombination all its possible applications. The most obvious was that\nJehovah would remember the sin of Judah, but the recent prophets sent to\nrecall the sinners to their God showed that Jehovah also remembered their\nformer righteousness and desired to recall it to them and them to it; they\nshould remember Jehovah. Moreover, Joash should remember the teaching of\nJehoiada and his obligations to the father of the man now addressing him.\nProbably Joash did remember all this when, in the striking Hebrew idiom,\n\u201cthe spirit of God clothed itself with Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the\npriest, and he stood above the people and said unto them, Thus saith God:\nWhy transgress ye the commandments of Jehovah, to your hurt? Because ye\nhave forsaken Jehovah, He hath also forsaken you.\u201d This is the burden of\nthe prophetic utterances in Chronicles(404); the converse is stated by\nIren\u00e6us when he says that to follow the Saviour is to partake of\nsalvation. Though the truth of this teaching had been enforced again and\nagain by the misfortunes that had befallen Judah under apostate kings,\nJoash paid no heed to it, nor did he remember the kindness which Jehoiada\nhad done him; that is to say, he showed no gratitude towards the house of\nJehoiada. Perhaps an uncomfortable sense of obligation to the father only\nembittered him the more against his son. But the son of the high-priest\ncould not be dealt with as summarily as Asa dealt with Hanani when he put\nhim in prison. The king might have been indifferent to the wrath of\nJehovah, but the son of the man who had for years ruled Judah and\nJerusalem must have had a strong party at his back. Accordingly the king\nand his adherents conspired against Zechariah, and they stoned him with\nstones by the king\u2019s command. This Old Testament martyr died in a very\ndifferent spirit from that of Stephen; his prayer was, not, \u201cLord, lay not\nthis sin to their charge,\u201d but \u201cJehovah, look upon it and require it.\u201d His\nprayer did not long remain unanswered. Within a year the Syrians(405) came\nagainst Joash; he had a very great host, but he was powerless against a\nsmall company of the Divinely commissioned avengers of Zechariah. The\ntempters who had seduced the king into apostacy were a special mark for\nthe wrath of Jehovah: the Syrians destroyed all the princes, and sent\ntheir spoil to the king of Damascus. Like Asa and Jehoram, Joash suffered\npersonal punishment in the shape of \u201cgreat diseases,\u201d but his end was even\nmore tragic than theirs. One conspiracy avenged another: in his own\nhousehold there were adherents of the family of Jehoiada: \u201cTwo of his own\nservants conspired against him for the blood of Zechariah, and slew him on\nhis bed; and they buried him in the city of David, and not in the\nsepulchres of the kings.\u201d\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s biography of Joash might have been specially designed to\nremind his readers that the most careful education must sometimes fail of\nits purpose. Joash had been trained from his earliest years in the Temple\nitself, under the care of Jehoiada and of his aunt Jehoshabeath, the\nhigh-priest\u2019s wife. He had no doubt been carefully instructed in the\nreligion and sacred history of Israel, and had been continually surrounded\nby the best religious influences of his age. For Judah, in the\nchronicler\u2019s estimation, was even then the one home of the true faith.\nThese holy influences had been continued after Joash had attained to\nmanhood, and Jehoiada was careful to provide that the young king\u2019s harem\nshould be enlisted in the cause of piety and good government. We may be\nsure that the two wives whom Jehoiada selected for his pupil were\nconsistent worshippers of Jehovah and loyal to the Law and the Temple. No\ndaughter of the house of Ahab, no \u201cstrange wife\u201d from Egypt, Ammon, or\nMoab, would be allowed the opportunity of undoing the good effects of\nearly training. Moreover, we might have expected the character developed\nby education to be strengthened by exercise. The early years of his reign\nwere occupied by zealous activity in the service of the Temple. The pupil\noutstripped his master, and the enthusiasm of the youthful king found\noccasion to rebuke the tardy zeal of the venerable high-priest.\n\nAnd yet all this fair promise was blighted in a day. The piety carefully\nfostered for half a life-time gave way before the first assaults of\ntemptation, and never even attempted to reassert itself. Possibly the\nbrief and fragmentary records from which the chronicler had to make his\nselection unduly emphasise the contrast between the earlier and later\nyears of the reign of Joash; but the picture he draws of the failure of\nbest of tutors and governors is unfortunately only too typical. Julian the\nApostate was educated by a distinguished Christian prelate, Eusebius of\nNicomedia, and was trained in a strict routine of religious observances;\nyet he repudiated Christianity at the earliest safe opportunity. His\napostacy, like that of Joash, was probably characterised by base\ningratitude. At Constantine\u2019s death the troops in Constantinople massacred\nnearly all the princes of the imperial family, and Julian, then only six\nyears old, is said to have been saved and concealed in a church by Mark,\nBishop of Arethusa. When Julian became emperor, he repaid this obligation\nby subjecting his benefactor to cruel tortures because he had destroyed a\nheathen temple and refused to make any compensation. Imagine Joash\nrequiring Jehoiada to make compensation for pulling down a high place!\n\nThe parallel of Julian may suggest a partial explanation of the fall of\nJoash. The tutelage of Jehoiada may have been too strict, monotonous, and\nprolonged; in choosing wives for the young king, the aged priest may not\nhave made an altogether happy selection; Jehoiada may have kept Joash\nunder control until he was incapable of independence and could only pass\nfrom one dominant influence to another. When the high-priest\u2019s death gave\nthe king an opportunity of changing his masters, a reaction from the too\nurgent insistence upon his duty to the Temple may have inclined Joash to\nlisten favourably to the solicitations of the princes.\n\nBut perhaps the sins of Joash are sufficiently accounted for by his\nancestry. His mother was Zibiah of Beersheba, and therefore probably a\nJewess. Of her we know nothing further good or bad. Otherwise his\nancestors for two generations had been uniformly bad. His father and\ngrandfather were the wicked kings Jehoram and Ahaziah; his grandmother was\nAthaliah; and he was descended from Ahab, and possibly from Jezebel. When\nwe recollect that his mother Zibiah was a wife of Ahaziah and had probably\nbeen selected by Athaliah, we cannot suppose that the element she\ncontributed to his character would do much to counteract the evil he\ninherited from his father.\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s account of his successor Amaziah is equally\ndisappointing; he also began well and ended miserably. In the opening\nformul\u00e6 of the history of the new reign and in the account of the\npunishment of the assassins of Joash, the chronicler closely follows the\nearlier narrative, omitting, as usual, the statement that this good king\ndid not take away the high places. Like his pious predecessors, Amaziah in\nhis earlier and better years was rewarded with a great army(406) and\nmilitary success; and yet the muster-roll of his forces shows how the sins\nand calamities of the recent wicked reigns had told on the resources of\nJudah. Jehoshaphat could command more than eleven hundred and sixty\nthousand soldiers; Amaziah has only three hundred thousand.\n\nThese were not sufficient for the king\u2019s ambition; by the Divine grace, he\nhad already amassed wealth, in spite of the Syrian ravages at the close of\nthe preceding reign: and he laid out a hundred talents of silver in\npurchasing the services of as many thousand Israelites, thus falling into\nthe sin for which Jehoshaphat had twice been reproved and punished.\nJehovah, however, arrested Amaziah\u2019s employment of unholy allies at the\noutset. A man of God came to him and exhorted him not to let the army of\nIsrael go with him, because \u201cJehovah is not with Israel\u201d; if he had\ncourage and faith to go with only his three hundred thousand Jews, all\nwould be well, otherwise God would cast him down, as He had done Ahaziah.\nThe statement that Jehovah was not with Israel might have been understood\nin a sense that would seem almost blasphemous to the chronicler\u2019s\ncontemporaries; he is careful therefore to explain that here \u201cIsrael\u201d\nsimply means \u201cthe children of Ephraim.\u201d\n\nAmaziah obeyed the prophet, but was naturally distressed at the thought\nthat he had spent a hundred talents for nothing: \u201cWhat shall we do for the\nhundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel?\u201d He did not\nrealise that the Divine alliance would be worth more to him than many\nhundred talents of silver; or perhaps he reflected that Divine grace is\nfree, and that he might have saved his money. One would like to believe\nthat he was anxious to recover this silver in order to devote it to the\nservice of the sanctuary; but he was evidently one of those sordid souls\nwho like, as the phrase goes, \u201cto get their religion for nothing.\u201d No\nwonder Amaziah went astray! We can scarcely be wrong in detecting a vein\nof contempt in the prophet\u2019s answer: \u201cJehovah can give thee much more than\nthis.\u201d\n\nThis little episode carries with it a great principle. Every crusade\nagainst an established abuse is met with the cry, \u201cWhat shall we do for\nthe hundred talents?\u201d\u2014for the capital invested in slaves or in gin-shops;\nfor English revenues from alcohol or Indian revenues from opium? Few have\nfaith to believe that the Lord can provide for financial deficits, or, if\nwe may venture to indicate the method in which the Lord provides, that a\nnation will ever be able to pay its way by honest finance. Let us note,\nhowever, that Amaziah was asked to sacrifice his own talents, and not\nother people\u2019s.\n\nAccordingly Amaziah sent the mercenaries home; and they returned in great\ndudgeon, offended by the slight put upon them and disappointed at the loss\nof prospective plunder. The king\u2019s sin in hiring Israelite mercenaries was\nto suffer a severer punishment than the loss of money. While he was away\nat war, his rejected allies returned, and attacked the border cities,(407)\nkilled three thousand Jews, and took much plunder.\n\nMeanwhile Amaziah and his army were reaping direct fruits of their\nobedience in Edom, where they gained a great victory, and followed it up\nby a massacre of ten thousand captives, whom they killed by throwing down\nfrom the top of a precipice. Yet, after all, Amaziah\u2019s victory over Edom\nwas of small profit to him, for he was thereby seduced into idolatry.\nAmongst his other prisoners, he had brought away the gods of Edom; and\ninstead of throwing them over a precipice, as a pious king should have\ndone, \u201che set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them,\nand burned incense unto them.\u201d\n\nThen Jehovah, in His anger, sent a prophet to demand, \u201cWhy hast thou\nsought after foreign gods, which have not delivered their own people out\nof thine hand?\u201d According to current ideas outside of Israel, a nation\nmight very reasonably seek after the gods of their conquerors. Such\nconquest could only be attributed to the superior power and grace of the\ngods of the victors: the gods of the defeated were vanquished along with\ntheir worshippers, and were obviously incompetent and unworthy of further\nconfidence. But to act like Amaziah\u2014to go out to battle in the name of\nJehovah, directed and encouraged by His prophet, to conquer by the grace\nof the God of Israel, and then to desert Jehovah of hosts, the Giver of\nvictory, for the paltry and discredited idols of the conquered\nEdomites\u2014this was sheer madness. And yet as Greece enslaved her Roman\nconquerors, so the victor has often been won to the faith of the\nvanquished. The Church subdued the barbarians who had overwhelmed the\nempire, and the heathen Saxons adopted at last the religion of the\nconquered Britons. Henry IV. of France is scarcely a parallel to Amaziah:\nhe went to mass that he might hold his sceptre with a firmer grasp, while\nthe king of Judah merely adopted foreign idols in order to gratify his\nsuperstition and love of novelty.\n\nApparently Amaziah was at first inclined to discuss the question: he and\nthe prophet talked together; but the king soon became irritated, and broke\noff the interview with abrupt discourtesy: \u201cHave we made thee of the\nking\u2019s counsel? Forbear; why shouldest thou be smitten?\u201d Prosperity seems\nto have been invariably fatal to the Jewish kings who began to reign well;\nthe success that rewarded, at the same time destroyed their virtue. Before\nhis victory Amaziah had been courteous and submissive to the messenger of\nJehovah; now he defied Him and treated His prophet roughly. The latter\ndisappeared, but not before he had declared the Divine condemnation of the\nstubborn king.\n\nThe rest of the history of Amaziah\u2014his presumptuous war with Joash, king\nof Israel, his defeat and degradation, and his assassination\u2014is taken\nverbatim from the book of Kings, with a few modifications and editorial\nnotes by the chronicler to harmonise these sections with the rest of his\nnarrative. For instance, in the book of Kings the account of the war with\nJoash begins somewhat abruptly: Amaziah sends his defiance before any\nreason has been given for his action. The chronicler inserts a phrase\nwhich connects his new paragraph very suggestively with the one that goes\nbefore. The former concluded with the king\u2019s taunt that the prophet was\nnot of his counsel, to which the prophet replied that the king should be\ndestroyed because he had not hearkened to the Divine counsel proffered to\nhim. Then Amaziah \u201ctook advice\u201d; _i.e._, he consulted those who were of\nhis counsel, and the sequel showed their incompetence. The chronicler also\nexplains that Amaziah\u2019s rash persistence in his challenge to Joash \u201cwas of\nGod, that He might deliver them into the hand of their enemies, because\nthey had sought after the gods of Edom.\u201d He also tells us that the name of\nthe custodian of the sacred vessels of the Temple was Obed-edom. As the\nchronicler mentions five Levites of the name of Obed-edom, four of whom\noccur nowhere else, the name was probably common in some family still\nsurviving in his own time. But, in view of the fondness of the Jews for\nsignificant etymology, it is probable that the name is recorded here\nbecause it was exceedingly appropriate. \u201cThe servant of Edom\u201d suits the\nofficial who has to surrender his sacred charge to a conqueror because his\nown king had worshipped the gods of Edom. Lastly, an additional note\nexplains that Amaziah\u2019s apostacy had promptly deprived him of the\nconfidence and loyalty of his subjects; the conspiracy which led to his\nassassination was formed from the time that he turned away from following\nJehovah, so that when he sent his proud challenge to Joash his authority\nwas already undermined, and there were traitors in the army which he led\nagainst Israel. We are shown one of the means used by Jehovah to bring\nabout his defeat.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VII. Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz.(408) 2 Chron. xxvi.-xxviii.\n\n\nAfter the assassination of Amaziah, all the people of Judah took his son\nUzziah, a lad of sixteen, called in the book of Kings Azariah, and made\nhim king. The chronicler borrows from the older narrative the statement\nthat \u201cUzziah did that which was right in the eyes of Jehovah, according to\nall that his father Amaziah had done.\u201d In the light of the sins attributed\nboth to Amaziah and Uzziah in Chronicles, this is a somewhat doubtful\ncompliment. Sarcasm, however, is not one of the chronicler\u2019s failings; he\nsimply allows the older history to speak for itself, and leaves the reader\nto combine its judgment with the statement of later tradition as best he\ncan. But yet we might modify this verse, and read that Uzziah did good and\nevil, prospered and fell into misfortune, according to all that his father\nAmaziah had done, or an even closer parallel might be drawn between what\nUzziah did and suffered and the chequered character and fortunes of Joash.\n\nThough much older than the latter, at his accession Uzziah was young\nenough to be very much under the control of ministers and advisers; and as\nJoash was trained in loyalty to Jehovah by the high-priest Jehoiada, so\nUzziah \u201cset himself to seek God during the life-time\u201d of a certain\nprophet, who, like the son of Jehoiada, was named Zechariah, \u201cwho had\nunderstanding or gave instruction in the fear of Jehovah,\u201d(409) _i.e._, a\nman versed in sacred learning, rich in spiritual experience, and able to\ncommunicate his knowledge, such a one as Ezra the scribe in later days.\n\nUnder the guidance of this otherwise unknown prophet, the young king was\nled to conform his private life and public administration to the will of\nGod. In \u201cseeking God,\u201d Uzziah would be careful to maintain and attend the\nTemple services, to honour the priests of Jehovah and make due provision\nfor their wants; and \u201cas long as he sought Jehovah God gave him\nprosperity.\u201d\n\nUzziah received all the rewards usually bestowed upon pious kings: he was\nvictorious in war, and exacted tribute from neighbouring states; he built\nfortresses, and had abundance of cattle and slaves, a large and\nwell-equipped army, and well-supplied arsenals. Like other powerful kings\nof Judah, he asserted his supremacy over the tribes along the southern\nfrontier of his kingdom. God helped him against the Philistines, the\nArabians of Gur-baal, and the Meunim. He destroyed the fortifications of\nGath, Jabne, and Ashdod, and built forts of his own in the country of the\nPhilistines. Nothing is known about Gur-baal; but the Arabian allies of\nthe Philistines would be, like Jehoram\u2019s enemies \u201cthe Arabians who dwelt\nnear the Ethiopians,\u201d nomads of the deserts south of Judah. These\nPhilistines and Arabians had brought tribute to Jehoshaphat without\nwaiting to be subdued by his armies; so now the Ammonites gave gifts to\nUzziah, and his name spread abroad \u201ceven to the entering in of Egypt,\u201d\npossibly a hundred or even a hundred and fifty miles from Jerusalem. It is\nevident that the chronicler\u2019s ideas of international politics were of very\nmodest dimensions.\n\nMoreover, Uzziah added to the fortifications of Jerusalem; and because he\nloved husbandry and had cattle, and husbandmen, and vine-dressers in the\nopen country and outlying districts of Judah, he built towers for their\nprotection. His army was of about the same strength as that of Amaziah,\nthree hundred thousand men, so that in this, as in his character and\nexploits, he did according to all that his father had done, except that he\nwas content with his own Jewish warriors and did not waste his talents in\npurchasing worse than useless reinforcements from Israel. Uzziah\u2019s army\nwas well disciplined, carefully organised, and constantly employed; they\nwere men of mighty power, and went out to war by bands, to collect the\nking\u2019s tribute and enlarge his dominions and revenue by new conquests. The\nwar material in his arsenals is described at greater length than that of\nany previous king: shields, spears, helmets, coats of mail, bows and\nstones for slings. The great advance of military science in Uzziah\u2019s reign\nwas marked by the invention of engines of war for the defence of\nJerusalem; some, like the Roman _catapulta_, were for arrows, and others,\nlike the _ballista_, to hurl huge stones. Though the Assyrian sculptures\nshow us that battering-rams were freely employed by them against the walls\nof Jewish cities,(410) and the _ballista_ is said by Pliny to have been\ninvented in Syria,(411) no other Hebrew king is credited with the\npossession of this primitive artillery. The chronicler or his authority\nseems profoundly impressed by the great skill displayed in this invention;\nin describing it, he uses the root \u1e25\u0101shabh, to devise, three times in\nthree consecutive words. The engines were \u201c_\u1e25ishshebh\u014dn\u00f4th ma\u1e25\u0103shebheth\n\u1e25\u00f4sh\u0113bh_\u201d\u2014\u201cengines engineered by the ingenious.\u201d Jehovah not only provided\nUzziah with ample military resources of every kind, but also blessed the\nmeans which He Himself had furnished; Uzziah \u201cwas marvellously helped,\ntill he was strong, and his name spread far abroad.\u201d The neighbouring\nstates heard with admiration of his military resources.\n\nThe student of Chronicles will by this time be prepared for the invariable\nsequel to God-given prosperity. Like David, Rehoboam, Asa, and Amaziah,\nwhen Uzziah \u201cwas strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction.\u201d The\nmost powerful of the kings of Judah died a leper. An attack of leprosy\nadmitted of only one explanation: it was a plague inflicted by Jehovah\nHimself as the punishment of sin; and so the book of Kings tells us that\n\u201cJehovah smote the king,\u201d but says nothing about the sin thus punished.\nThe chronicler was able to supply the omission: Uzziah had dared to go\ninto the Temple and with irregular zeal to burn incense on the altar of\nincense. In so doing, he was violating the Law, which made the priestly\noffice and all priestly functions the exclusive prerogative of the house\nof Aaron and denounced the penalty of death against any one who usurped\npriestly functions.(412) But Uzziah was not allowed to carry out his\nunholy design; the high-priest Azariah went in after him with eighty\nstalwart colleagues, rebuked his presumption, and bade him leave the\nsanctuary. Uzziah was no more tractable to the admonitions of the priest\nthan Asa and Amaziah had been to those of the prophets. The kings of Judah\nwere accustomed, even in Chronicles, to exercise an unchallenged control\nover the Temple and to regard the high-priests very much in the light of\nprivate chaplains. Uzziah was wroth; he was at the zenith of his power and\nglory; his heart was lifted up. Who were these priests, that they should\nstand between him and Jehovah and dare to publicly check and rebuke him in\nhis own temple? Henry II.\u2019s feelings towards Becket must have been mild\ncompared to those of Uzziah towards Azariah, who, if the king could have\nhad his way, would doubtless have shared the fate of Zechariah the son of\nJehoiada. But a direct intervention of Jehovah protected the priests, and\npreserved Uzziah from further sacrilege. While his features were convulsed\nwith anger, leprosy brake forth in his forehead. The contest between king\nand priest was at once ended; the priests thrust him out, and he himself\nhasted to go, recognising that Jehovah had smitten him. Henceforth he\nlived apart, cut off from fellowship alike with man and God, and his son\nJotham governed in his stead. The book of Kings simply makes the general\nstatement that Uzziah was buried with his fathers in the city of David;\nbut the chronicler is anxious that his readers should not suppose that the\ntombs of the sacred house of David were polluted by the presence of a\nleprous corpse: he explains that the leper was buried, not in the royal\nsepulchre, but in the field attached to it.\n\nThe moral of this incident is obvious. In attempting to understand its\nsignificance, we need not trouble ourselves about the relative authority\nof kings and priests; the principle vindicated by the punishment of Uzziah\nwas the simple duty of obedience to an express command of Jehovah. However\ntrivial the burning of incense may be in itself, it formed part of an\nelaborate and complicated system of ritual. To interfere with the Divine\nordinances in one detail would mar the significance and impressiveness of\nthe whole Temple service. One arbitrary innovation would be a precedent\nfor others, and would constitute a serious danger for a system whose value\nlay in continuous uniformity. Moreover, Uzziah was stubborn in\ndisobedience. His attempt to burn incense might have been sufficiently\npunished by the public and humiliating reproof of the high-priest. His\nleprosy came upon him because when thwarted in an unholy purpose he gave\nway to ungoverned passion.\n\nIn its consequences we see a practical application of the lessons of the\nincident. How often is the sinner only provoked to greater wickedness by\nthe obstacles which Divine grace opposes to his wrongdoing! How few men\nwill tolerate the suggestion that their intentions are cruel, selfish, or\ndishonourable! Remonstrance is an insult, an offence against their\npersonal dignity; they feel that their self-respect demands that they\nshould persevere in their purpose, and that they should resent and punish\nany one who has tried to thwart them. Uzziah\u2019s wrath was perfectly\nnatural; few men have been so uniformly patient of reproof as not\nsometimes to have turned in anger upon those who warned them against sin.\nThe most dramatic feature of this episode, the sudden frost of leprosy in\nthe king\u2019s forehead, is not without its spiritual antitype. Men\u2019s anger at\nwell-merited reproof has often blighted their lives once for all with\nineradicable moral leprosy. In the madness of passion they have broken\nbonds which have hitherto restrained them and committed themselves beyond\nrecall to evil pursuits and fatal friendships. Let us take the most\nlenient view of Uzziah\u2019s conduct, and suppose that he believed himself\nentitled to offer incense; he could not doubt that the priests were\nequally confident that Jehovah had enjoined the duty on them, and them\nalone. Such a question was not to be decided by violence, in the heat of\npersonal bitterness. Azariah himself had been unwisely zealous in bringing\nin his eighty priests; Jehovah showed him that they were quite\nunnecessary, because at the last Uzziah \u201chimself hasted to go out.\u201d When\npersonal passion and jealousy are eliminated from Christian polemics, the\nChurch will be able to write the epitaph of the _odium theologicum_.\n\nUzziah was succeeded by Jotham, who had already governed for some time as\nregent. In recording the favourable judgment of the book of Kings, \u201cHe did\nthat which was right in the eyes of Jehovah, according to all that his\nfather Uzziah had done,\u201d the chronicler is careful to add, \u201cHowbeit he\nentered not into the temple of Jehovah\u201d; the exclusive privilege of the\nhouse of Aaron had been established once for all. The story of Jotham\u2019s\nreign comes like a quiet and pleasant oasis in the chronicler\u2019s dreary\nnarrative of wicked rulers, interspersed with pious kings whose piety\nfailed them in their latter days. Jotham shares with Solomon the\ndistinguished honour of being a king of whom no evil is recorded either in\nKings or Chronicles, and who died in prosperity, at peace with Jehovah. At\nthe same time it is probable that Jotham owes the blameless character he\nbears in Chronicles to the fact that the earlier narrative does not\nmention any misfortunes of his, especially any misfortune towards the\nclose of his life. Otherwise the theological school from whom the\nchronicler derived his later traditions would have been anxious to\ndiscover or deduce some sin to account for such misfortune. At the end of\nthe short notice of his reign, between two parts of the usual closing\nformula, an editor of the book of Kings has inserted the statement that\n\u201cin those days Jehovah began to send against Judah Rezin the king of Syria\nand Pekah the son of Remaliah.\u201d This verse the chronicler has omitted;\nneither the date(413) nor the nature of this trouble was clear enough to\ncast any slur upon the character of Jotham.\n\nJotham, again, had the rewards of a pious king: he added a gate to the\nTemple, and strengthened the wall of Ophel(414), and built cities and\ncastles in Judah; he made successful war upon Ammon, and received from\nthem an immense tribute\u2014a hundred talents of silver, ten thousand measures\nof wheat, and as much barley\u2014for three successive years. What happened\nafterwards we are not told. It has been suggested that the amounts\nmentioned were paid in three yearly instalments, or that the three years\nwere at the end of the reign, and the tribute came to an end when Jotham\ndied or when the troubles with Pekah and Rezin began.\n\nWe have had repeated occasion to notice that in his accounts of the good\nkings the chronicler almost always omits the qualifying clause to the\neffect that they did not take away the high places. He does so here; but,\ncontrary to his usual practice, he inserts a qualifying clause of his own:\n\u201cThe people did yet corruptly.\u201d He probably had in view the unmitigated\nwickedness of the following reign, and was glad to retain the evidence\nthat Ahaz found encouragement and support in his idolatry; he is careful,\nhowever, to state the fact so that no shadow of blame falls upon Jotham.\n\nThe life of Ahaz has been dealt with elsewhere. Here we need merely repeat\nthat for the sixteen years of his reign Judah was to all appearance\nutterly given over to every form of idolatry, and was oppressed and\nbrought low by Israel, Syria, and Assyria.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII. Hezekiah: The Religious Value Of Music. 2 Chron.\nxxix.-xxxii.\n\n\nThe bent of the chroniclers mind is well illustrated by the proportion of\nspace assigned to ritual by him and by the book of Kings respectively. In\nthe latter a few lines only are devoted to ritual, and the bulk of the\nspace is given to the invasion of Sennacherib, the embassy from Babylon,\netc., while in Chronicles ritual occupies about three times as many verses\nas personal and public affairs.\n\nHezekiah, though not blameless, was all but perfect in his loyalty to\nJehovah. The chronicler reproduces the customary formula for a good king:\n\u201cHe did that which was right in the eyes of Jehovah, according to all that\nDavid his father had done\u201d; but his cautious judgment rejects the somewhat\nrhetorical statement in Kings that \u201cafter him was none like him among all\nthe kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.\u201d\n\nHezekiah\u2019s policy was made clear immediately after his accession. His zeal\nfor reformation could tolerate no delay; the first month(415) of the first\nyear of his reign saw him actively engaged in the good work.(416) It was\nno light task that lay before him. Not only were there altars in every\ncorner of Jerusalem and idolatrous high places in every city of Judah, but\nthe Temple services had ceased, the lamps were put out, the sacred vessels\ncut in pieces, the Temple had been polluted and then closed, and the\npriests and Levites were scattered. Sixteen years of licensed idolatry\nmust have fostered all that was vile in the country, have put wicked men\nin authority, and created numerous vested interests connected by close\nties with idolatry, notably the priests of all the altars and high places.\nOn the other hand, the reign of Ahaz had been an unbroken series of\ndisasters; the people had repeatedly endured the horrors of invasion. His\ngovernment as time went on must have become more and more unpopular, for\nwhen he died he was not buried in the sepulchres of the kings. As idolatry\nwas a prominent feature of his policy, there would be a reaction in favour\nof the worship of Jehovah, and there would not be wanting true believers\nto tell the people that their sufferings were a consequence of idolatry.\nTo a large party in Judah Hezekiah\u2019s reversal of his father\u2019s religious\npolicy would be as welcome as Elizabeth\u2019s declaration against Rome was to\nmost Englishmen.\n\nHezekiah began by opening and repairing the doors of the Temple. Its\nclosed doors had been a symbol of the national repudiation of Jehovah; to\nreopen them was necessarily the first step in the reconciliation of Judah\nto its God, but only the first step. The doors were open as a sign that\nJehovah was invited to return to His people and again to manifest His\npresence in the Holy of holies, so that through those open doors Israel\nmight have access to Him by means of the priests. But the Temple was as\nyet no fit place for the presence of Jehovah. With its lamps extinguished,\nits sacred vessels destroyed, its floors and walls thick with dust and\nfull of all filthiness, it was rather a symbol of the apostacy of Judah.\nAccordingly Hezekiah sought the help of the Levites. It is true that he is\nfirst said to have collected together priests and Levites, but from that\npoint onward the priests are almost entirely ignored.\n\nHezekiah reminded the Levites of the misdoings of Ahaz and his adherents\nand the wrath which they had brought upon Judah and Jerusalem; he told\nthem it was his purpose to conciliate Jehovah by making a covenant with\nHim; he appealed to them as the chosen ministers of Jehovah and His temple\nto co-operate heartily in this good work.\n\nThe Levites responded to his appeal apparently rather in acts than words.\nNo spokesman replies to the king\u2019s speech, but with prompt obedience they\nset about their work forthwith; they arose, Kohathites, sons of Merari,\nGershonites, sons of Elizaphan, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun\u2014the chronicler\nhas a Homeric fondness for catalogues of high-sounding names\u2014the leaders\nof all these divisions are duly mentioned. Kohath, Gershon, and Merari are\nwell known as the three great clans of the house of Levi; and here we find\nthe three guilds of singers\u2014Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun\u2014placed on a level\nwith the older clans. Elizaphan was apparently a division of the clan\nKohath,(417) which, like the guilds of singers, had obtained an\nindependent status. The result is to recognise seven divisions of the\ntribe.\n\nThe chiefs of the Levites gathered their brethren together, and having\nperformed the necessary rites of ceremonial cleansing for themselves, went\nin to cleanse the Temple; that is to say, the priests went into the holy\nplace and the Holy of holies and brought out \u201call the uncleanness\u201d into\nthe court, and the Levites carried it away to the brook Kidron: but before\nthe building itself could be reached eight days were spent in cleansing\nthe courts, and then the priests went into the Temple itself and spent\neight days in cleansing it, in the manner described above. Then they\nreported to the king that the cleansing was finished, and especially that\n\u201call the vessels which King Ahaz cast away\u201d had been recovered and\nreconsecrated with due ceremony. We were told in the previous chapter that\nAhaz had cut to pieces the vessels of the Temple, but these may have been\nother vessels.\n\nThen Hezekiah celebrated a great dedication feast; seven bullocks, seven\nrams, seven lambs, and seven he-goats were offered as a sin-offering for\nthe dynasty,(418) for the Temple, for Judah, and (by special command of\nthe king) for all Israel, _i.e._ for the northern tribes as well as for\nJudah and Benjamin. Apparently this sin-offering was made in silence, but\nafterwards the king set the Levites and priests in their places with their\nmusical instruments, and when the burnt offering began \u201cthe song of\nJehovah began with the trumpets together with the instruments of David\nking of Israel. And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang,\nand the trumpeters sounded,\u201d and all this continued till the burnt\noffering was finished.\n\nWhen the people had been formally reconciled to Jehovah by this\nrepresentative national sacrifice, and thus purified from the uncleanness\nof idolatry and consecrated afresh to their God, they were permitted and\ninvited to make individual sacrifices, thank-offerings and burnt\nofferings. Each man might enjoy for himself the renewed privilege of\naccess to Jehovah, and obtain the assurance of pardon for his sins, and\noffer thanksgiving for his own special blessings. And they brought\nofferings in abundance: seventy bullocks, a hundred rams, and two hundred\nlambs for a burnt offering; and six hundred oxen and three thousand sheep\nfor thank-offerings. Thus were the Temple services restored and\nreinaugurated; and Hezekiah and the people rejoiced because they felt that\nthis unpremeditated outburst of enthusiasm was due to the gracious\ninfluence of the Spirit of Jehovah.\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s narrative is somewhat marred by a touch of professional\njealousy. According to the ordinary ritual,(419) the offerer flayed the\nburnt offerings; but for some special reason, perhaps because of the\nexceptional solemnity of the occasion, this duty now devolved upon the\npriests. But the burnt offerings were abundant beyond all precedent; the\npriests were too few for the work, and the Levites were called in to help\nthem, \u201cfor the Levites were more upright in heart to purify themselves\nthan the priests.\u201d Apparently even in the second Temple brethren did not\nalways dwell together in unity.\n\nHezekiah had now provided for the regular services of the Temple, and had\ngiven the inhabitants of Jerusalem a full opportunity of returning to\nJehovah; but the people of the provinces were chiefly acquainted with the\nTemple through the great annual festivals. These, too, had long been in\nabeyance; and special steps had to be taken to secure their future\nobservance. In order to do this, it was necessary to recall the\nprovincials to their allegiance to Jehovah. Under ordinary circumstances\nthe great festival of the Passover would have been observed in the first\nmonth, but at the time appointed for the paschal feast the Temple was\nstill unclean, and the priests and Levites were occupied in its\npurification. But Hezekiah could not endure that the first year of his\nreign should be marked by the omission of this great feast. He took\ncounsel with the princes and public assembly\u2014nothing is said about the\npriests\u2014and they decided to hold the Passover in the second month instead\nof the first. We gather from casual allusions in vv. 6-8 that the kingdom\nof Samaria had already come to an end; the people had been carried into\ncaptivity, and only a remnant were left in the land.(420) From this point\nthe kings of Judah act as religious heads of the whole nation and\nterritory of Israel. Hezekiah sent invitations to all Israel from Dan to\nBeersheba. He made special efforts to secure a favourable response from\nthe northern tribes, sending letters to Ephraim and Manasseh, _i.e._, to\nthe ten tribes under their leadership. He reminded them that their\nbrethren had gone into captivity because the northern tribes had deserted\nthe Temple; and held out to them the hope that, if they worshipped at the\nTemple and served Jehovah, they should themselves escape further calamity,\nand their brethren and children who had gone into captivity should return\nto their own land.\n\n\u201cSo the posts passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and\nManasseh, even unto Zebulun.\u201d Either Zebulun is used in a broad sense for\nall the Galilean tribes, or the phrase \u201cfrom Beersheba to Dan\u201d is merely\nrhetorical, for to the north, between Zebulun and Dan, lay the territories\nof Asher and Naphtali. It is to be noticed that the tribes beyond Jordan\nare nowhere referred to; they had already fallen out of the history of\nIsrael, and were scarcely remembered in the time of the chronicler.\n\nHezekiah\u2019s appeal to the surviving communities of the northern kingdom\nfailed: they laughed his messengers to scorn, and mocked them; but\nindividuals responded to his invitation in such numbers that they are\nspoken of as \u201ca multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim and\nManasseh, Issachar and Zebulun.\u201d There were also men of Asher among the\nnorthern pilgrims.(421)\n\nThe pious enthusiasm of Judah stood out in vivid contrast to the stubborn\nimpenitence of the majority of the ten tribes. By the grace of God, Judah\nwas of one heart to observe the feast appointed by Jehovah through the\nking and princes, so that there was gathered in Jerusalem a very great\nassembly of worshippers, surpassing even the great gatherings which the\nchronicler had witnessed at the annual feasts.\n\nBut though the Temple had been cleansed, the Holy City was not yet free\nfrom the taint of idolatry. The character of the Passover demanded that\nnot only the Temple, but the whole city, should be pure. The paschal lamb\nwas eaten at home, and the doorposts of the house were sprinkled with its\nblood. But Ahaz had set up altars at every corner of the city; no devout\nIsraelite could tolerate the symbols of idolatrous worship close to the\nhouse in which he celebrated the solemn rites of the Passover. Accordingly\nbefore the Passover was killed these altars were removed.(422)\n\nThen the great feast began; but after long years of idolatry neither the\npeople nor the priests and Levites were sufficiently familiar with the\nrites of the festival to be able to perform them without some difficulty\nand confusion. As a rule each head of a household killed his own lamb; but\nmany of the worshippers, especially those from the north, were not\nceremonially clean: and this task devolved upon the Levites. The immense\nconcourse of worshippers and the additional work thrown upon the Temple\nministry must have made extraordinary demands on their zeal and\nenergy.(423) At first apparently they hesitated, and were inclined to\nabstain from discharging their usual duties. A passover in a month not\nappointed by Moses, but decided on by the civil authorities without\nconsulting the priesthood, might seem a doubtful and dangerous innovation.\nRecollecting Azariah\u2019s successful assertion of hierarchical prerogative\nagainst Uzziah, they might be inclined to attempt a similar resistance to\nHezekiah. But the pious enthusiasm of the people clearly showed that the\nSpirit of Jehovah inspired their somewhat irregular zeal; so that the\necclesiastical officials were shamed out of their unsympathetic attitude,\nand came forward to take their full share and even more than their full\nshare in this glorious rededication of Israel to Jehovah.\n\nBut a further difficulty remained: uncleanness not only disqualified from\nkilling the paschal lambs, but from taking any part in the Passover; and a\nmultitude of the people were unclean. Yet it would have been ungracious\nand even dangerous to discourage their newborn zeal by excluding them from\nthe festival; moreover, many of them were worshippers from among the ten\ntribes, who had come in response to a special invitation, which most of\ntheir fellow-countrymen had rejected with scorn and contempt. If they had\nbeen sent back because they had failed to cleanse themselves according to\na ritual of which they were ignorant, and of which Hezekiah might have\nknown they would be ignorant, both the king and his guests would have\nincurred measureless ridicule from the impious northerners. Accordingly\nthey were allowed to take part in the Passover despite their uncleanness.\nBut this permission could only be granted with serious apprehensions as to\nits consequences. The Law threatened with death any one who attended the\nservices of the sanctuary in a state of uncleanness.(424) Possibly there\nwere already signs of an outbreak of pestilence; at any rate, the dread of\nDivine punishment for sacrilegious presumption would distress the whole\nassembly and mar their enjoyment of Divine fellowship. Again it is no\npriest or prophet, but the king, the Messiah, who comes forward as the\nmediator between God and man. Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, \u201cJehovah,\nin His grace and mercy,(425) pardon every one that setteth his heart to\nseek Elohim Jehovah, the God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed\naccording to the ritual of the Temple. And Jehovah hearkened to Hezekiah,\nand healed the people,\u201d _i.e._, either healed them from actual disease or\nrelieved them from the fear of pestilence.\n\nAnd so the feast went on happily and prosperously, and was prolonged by\nacclamation for an additional seven days. During fourteen days king and\nprinces, priests and Levites, Jews and Israelites, rejoiced before\nJehovah; thousands of bullocks and sheep smoked upon the altar; and now\nthe priests were not backward: great numbers purified themselves to serve\nthe popular devotion. The priests and Levites sang and made melody to\nJehovah, so that the Levites earned the king\u2019s special commendation. The\ngreat festival ended with a solemn benediction: \u201cThe priests(426) arose\nand blessed the people, and their voice was heard, and their prayer came\nto His holy habitation, even unto heaven.\u201d The priests, and through them\nthe people, received the assurance that their solemn and prolonged worship\nhad met with gracious acceptance.\n\nWe have already more than once had occasion to consider the chronicler\u2019s\nmain theme: the importance of the Temple, its ritual, and its ministers.\nIncidentally and perhaps unconsciously, he here suggests another lesson,\nwhich is specially significant as coming from an ardent ritualist, namely\nthe necessary limitations of uniformity in ritual. Hezekiah\u2019s celebration\nof the Passover is full of irregularities: it is held in the wrong month;\nit is prolonged to twice the usual period; there are amongst the\nworshippers multitudes of unclean persons, whose presence at these\nservices ought to have been visited with terrible punishment. All is\ncondoned on the ground of emergency, and the ritual laws are set aside\nwithout consulting the ecclesiastical officials. Everything serves to\nemphasise the lesson we touched on in connection with David\u2019s sacrifices\nat the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite: ritual is made for man, and\nnot man for ritual. Complete uniformity may be insisted on in ordinary\ntimes, but can be dispensed with in any pressing emergency; necessity\nknows no law, not even the Torah of the Pentateuch. Moreover, in such\nemergencies it is not necessary to wait for the initiative or even the\nsanction of ecclesiastical officials; the supreme authority in the Church\nin all its great crises resides in the whole body of believers. No one is\nentitled to speak with greater authority on the limitations of ritual than\na strong advocate of the sanctity of ritual like the chronicler; and we\nmay well note, as one of the most conspicuous marks of his inspiration,\nthe sanctified common sense shown by his frank and sympathetic record of\nthe irregularities of Hezekiah\u2019s passover. Doubtless emergencies had\narisen even in his own experience of the great feasts of the Temple that\nhad taught him this lesson; and it says much for the healthy tone of the\nTemple community in his day that he does not attempt to reconcile the\npractice of Hezekiah with the law of Moses by any harmonistic quibbles.\n\nThe work of purification and restoration, however, was still incomplete:\nthe Temple had been cleansed from the pollutions of idolatry, the heathen\naltars had been removed from Jerusalem, but the high places remained in\nall the cities of Judah. When the Passover was at last finished, the\nassembled multitude, \u201call Israel that were present,\u201d set out, like the\nEnglish or Scotch Puritans, on a great iconoclastic expedition. Throughout\nthe length and breadth of the Land of Promise, throughout Judah and\nBenjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh, they brake in pieces the sacred pillars,\nand hewed down the Asherim, and brake down the high places and altars;\nthen they went home.\n\nMeanwhile Hezekiah was engaged in reorganising the priests and Levites and\narranging for the payment and distribution of the sacred dues. The king\nset an example of liberality by making provision for the daily, weekly,\nmonthly, and festival offerings. The people were not slow to imitate him;\nthey brought first-fruits and tithes in such abundance that four months\nwere spent in piling up heaps of offerings.\n\n\u201cThus did Hezekiah throughout all Judah; and he wrought that which was\ngood, and right, and faithful before Jehovah his God; and in every work\nthat he began in the service of the Temple, and in the Law, and in the\ncommandments, to seek his God, he did it with all his heart, and brought\nit to a successful issue.\u201d\n\nThen follow an account of the deliverance from Sennacherib and of\nHezekiah\u2019s recovery from sickness, a reference to his undue pride in the\nmatter of the embassy from Babylon, and a description of the prosperity of\nhis reign, all for the most part abridged from the book of Kings. The\nprophet Isaiah, however, is almost ignored. A few of the more important\nmodifications deserve some little attention. We are told that the Assyrian\ninvasion was \u201cafter these things and this faithfulness,\u201d in order that we\nmay not forget that the Divine deliverance was a recompense for Hezekiah\u2019s\nloyalty to Jehovah. While the book of Kings tells us that Sennacherib took\nall the fenced cities of Judah, the chronicler feels that even this\nmeasure of misfortune would not have been allowed to befall a king who had\njust reconciled Israel to Jehovah, and merely says that Sennacherib\npurposed to break these cities up.\n\nThe chronicler(427) has preserved an account of the measures taken by\nHezekiah for the defence of his capital: how he stopped up the fountains\nand watercourses outside the city, so that a besieging army might not find\nwater, and repaired and strengthened the walls, and encouraged his people\nto trust in Jehovah.\n\nProbably the stopping of the water supply outside the walls was connected\nwith an operation mentioned at the close of the narrative of Hezekiah\u2019s\nreign: \u201cHezekiah also stopped the upper spring of the waters of Gihon, and\nbrought them straight down on the west side of the city of David.\u201d(428)\nMoreover, the chronicler\u2019s statements are based upon 2 Kings xx. 20, where\nit is said that \u201cHezekiah made the pool and the conduit and brought water\ninto the city.\u201d The chronicler was of course intimately acquainted with\nthe topography of Jerusalem in his own days, and uses his knowledge to\ninterpret and expand the statement in the book of Kings. He was possibly\nguided in part by Isa. xxii. 9, 11, where the \u201cgathering together the\nwaters of the lower pool\u201d and the \u201cmaking a reservoir between the two\nwalls for the water of the old pool\u201d are mentioned as precautions taken in\nview of a probable Assyrian siege. The recent investigations of the\nPalestine Exploration Fund have led to the discovery of aqueducts, and\nstoppages, and diversions of watercourses which are said to correspond to\nthe operations mentioned by the chronicler. If this be the case, they show\na very accurate knowledge on his part of the topography of Jerusalem in\nhis own day, and also illustrate his care to utilise all existing evidence\nin order to obtain a clear and accurate interpretation of the statements\nof his authority.\n\nThe reign of Hezekiah appears a suitable opportunity to introduce a few\nremarks on the importance which the chronicler attaches to the music of\nthe Temple services. Though the music is not more prominent with him than\nwith some earlier kings, yet in the case of David, Solomon, and\nJehoshaphat other subjects presented themselves for special treatment; and\nHezekiah\u2019s reign being the last in which the music of the sanctuary is\nspecially dwelt upon, we are able here to review the various references to\nthis subject. For the most part the chronicler tells his story of the\nvirtuous days of the good kings to a continual accompaniment of Temple\nmusic. We hear of the playing and singing when the Ark was brought to the\nhouse of Obed-edom; when it was taken into the city of David; at the\ndedication of the Temple; at the battle between Abijah and Jeroboam; at\nAsa\u2019s reformation; in connection with the overthrow of the Ammonites,\nMoabites, and Meunim in the reign of Jehoshaphat; at the coronation of\nJoash; at Hezekiah\u2019s feasts; and again, though less emphatically, at\nJosiah\u2019s passover. No doubt the special prominence given to the subject\nindicates a professional interest on the part of the author. If, however,\nmusic occupies an undue proportion of his space, and he has abridged\naccounts of more important matters to make room for his favourite theme,\nyet there is no reason to suppose that his actual statements overrate the\nextent to which music was used in worship or the importance attached to\nit. The older narratives refer to the music in the case of David and\nJoash, and assign psalms and songs to David and Solomon. Moreover, Judaism\nis by no means alone in its fondness for music, but shares this\ncharacteristic with almost all religions.\n\nWe have spoken of the chronicler so far chiefly as a professional\nmusician, but it should be clearly understood that the term must be taken\nin its best sense. He was by no means so absorbed in the technique of his\nart as to forget its sacred significance; he was not less a worshipper\nhimself because he was the minister or agent of the common worship. His\naccounts of the festivals show a hearty appreciation of the entire ritual;\nand his references to the music do not give us the technical circumstances\nof its production, but rather emphasise its general effect. The\nchronicler\u2019s sense of the religious value of music is largely that of a\ndevout worshipper, who is led to set forth for the benefit of others a\ntruth which is the fruit of his own experience. This experience is not\nconfined to trained musicians; indeed, a scientific knowledge of the art\nmay sometimes interfere with its devotional influence. Criticism may take\nthe place of worship; and the hearer, instead of yielding to the sacred\nsuggestions of hymn or anthem, may be distracted by his \u00e6sthetic judgment\nas to the merits of the composition and the skill shown by its rendering.\nIn the same way critical appreciation of voice, elocution, literary style,\nand intellectual power does not always conduce to edification from a\nsermon. In the truest culture, however, sensitiveness to these secondary\nqualities has become habitual and automatic, and blends itself\nimperceptibly with the religious consciousness of spiritual influence. The\nlatter is thus helped by excellence and only slightly hindered by minor\ndefects in the natural means. But the very absence of any great scientific\nknowledge of music may leave the spirit open to the spell which sacred\nmusic is intended to exercise, so that all cheerful and guileless souls\nmay be \u201cmoved with concord of sweet sounds,\u201d and sad and weary hearts find\ncomfort in subdued strains that breathe sympathy of which words are\nincapable.\n\nMusic, as a mode of utterance moving within the restraints of a regular\norder, naturally attaches itself to ritual. As the earliest literature is\npoetry, the earliest liturgy is musical. Melody is the simplest and most\nobvious means by which the utterances of a body of worshippers can be\ncombined into a seemly act of worship. The mere repetition of the same\nwords by a congregation in ordinary speech is apt to be wanting in\nimpressiveness or even in decorum; the use of tune enables a congregation\nto unite in worship even when many of its members are strangers to each\nother.\n\nAgain, music may be regarded as an expansion of language: not new dialect,\nbut a collection of symbols that can express thought, and more especially\nemotion, for which mere speech has no vocabulary. This new form of\nlanguage naturally becomes an auxiliary of religion. Words are clumsy\ninstruments for the expression of the heart, and are least efficient when\nthey undertake to set forth moral and spiritual ideas. Music can transcend\nmere speech in touching the soul to fine issues, suggesting visions of\nthings ineffable and unseen.\n\nBrowning makes Abt Vogler say of the most enduring and supreme hopes that\nGod has granted to men, \u201c\u2019Tis we musicians know\u201d; but the message of music\ncomes home with power to many who have no skill in its art.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IX. Manasseh: Repentance And Forgiveness. 2 Chron. xxxiii.\n\n\nIn telling the melancholy story of the wickedness of Manasseh in the first\nperiod of his reign, the chronicler reproduces the book of Kings, with one\nor two omissions and other slight alterations. He omits the name of\nManasseh\u2019s mother; she was called Hephzi-bah\u2014\u201cMy pleasure is in her.\u201d In\nany case, when the son of a godly father turns out badly, and nothing is\nknown about the mother, uncharitable people might credit her with his\nwickedness. But the chronicler\u2019s readers were familiar with the great\ninfluence of the queen-mother in Oriental states. When they read that the\nson of Hezekiah came to the throne at the age of twelve and afterwards\ngave himself up to every form of idolatry, they would naturally ascribe\nhis departure from his father\u2019s ways to the suggestions of his mother. The\nchronicler is not willing that the pious Hezekiah should lie under the\nimputation of having taken delight in an ungodly woman, and so her name is\nomitted.\n\nThe contents of 2 Kings xxi. 10-16 are also omitted; they consist of a\nprophetic utterance and further particulars as to the sins of Manasseh;\nthey are virtually replaced by the additional information in Chronicles.\n\nFrom the point of view of the chronicler, the history of Manasseh in the\nbook of Kings was far from satisfactory. The earlier writer had not only\nfailed to provide materials from which a suitable moral could be deduced,\nbut he had also told the story so that undesirable conclusions might be\ndrawn. Manasseh sinned more wickedly than any other king of Judah: Ahaz\nmerely polluted and closed the Temple, but Manasseh \u201cbuilt altars for all\nthe host of heaven in the two courts of the Temple,\u201d and set up in it an\nidol. And yet in the earlier narrative this most wicked king escaped\nwithout any personal punishment at all. Moreover, length of days was one\nof the rewards which Jehovah was wont to bestow upon the righteous; but\nwhile Ahaz was cut off at thirty-six, in the prime of manhood, Manasseh\nsurvived to the mature age of sixty-seven, and reigned fifty-five years.\n\nHowever, the history reached the chronicler in a more satisfactory form.\nManasseh was duly punished, and his long reign fully accounted for.(429)\nWhen, in spite of Divine warning, Manasseh and his people persisted in\ntheir sin, Jehovah sent against them \u201cthe captains of the host of the king\nof Assyria, which took Manasseh in chains, and bound him with\nfetters,(430) and carried him to Babylon.\u201d\n\nThe Assyrian invasion referred to here is partially confirmed by the fact\nthat the name of Manasseh occurs amongst the tributaries of Esarhaddon and\nhis successor, Assur-bani-pal. The mention of Babylon as his place of\ncaptivity rather than Nineveh may be accounted for by supposing that\nManasseh was taken prisoner in the reign of Esarhaddon. This king of\nAssyria rebuilt Babylon, and spent much of his time there. He is said to\nhave been of a kindly disposition and to have exercised towards other\nroyal captives the same clemency which he extended to Manasseh. For the\nJewish king\u2019s misfortunes led him to repentance: \u201cWhen he was in trouble,\nhe besought Jehovah his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of\nhis fathers, and prayed unto him.\u201d Amongst the Greek Apocrypha is found a\n\u201cPrayer of Manasses,\u201d doubtless intended by its author to represent the\nprayer referred to in Chronicles. In it Manasseh celebrates the Divine\nglory, confesses his great wickedness, and asks that his penitence may be\naccepted and that he may obtain deliverance.\n\nIf these were the terms of Manasseh\u2019s prayers, they were heard and\nanswered; and the captive king returned to Jerusalem a devout worshipper\nand faithful servant of Jehovah. He at once set to work to undo the evil\nhe had wrought in the former period of his reign. He took away the idol\nand the heathen altars from the Temple, restored the altar of Jehovah, and\nre-established the Temple services. In earlier days he had led the people\ninto idolatry; now he commanded them to serve Jehovah, and the people\nobediently followed the king\u2019s example. Apparently he found it\nimpracticable to interfere with the high places; but they were so far\npurified from corruption that, though the people still sacrificed at these\nillegal sanctuaries, they worshipped exclusively Jehovah, the God of\nIsrael.\n\nLike most of the pious kings, his prosperity was partly shown by his\nextensive building operations. Following in the footsteps of Jotham, he\nstrengthened or repaired the fortifications of Jerusalem, especially about\nOphel. He further provided for the safety of his dominions by placing\ncaptains, and doubtless also garrisons, in the fenced cities of Judah. The\ninterest taken by the Jews of the second Temple in the history of Manasseh\nis shown by the fact that the chronicler is able to mention, not only the\n\u201cActs of the Kings of Israel,\u201d but a second authority: \u201cThe History of the\nSeers.\u201d The imagination of the Targumists and other later writers\nembellished the history of Manasseh\u2019s captivity and release with many\nstriking and romantic circumstances.\n\nThe life of Manasseh practically completes the chronicler\u2019s series of\nobject-lessons in the doctrine of retribution; the history of the later\nkings only provides illustrations similar to those already given. These\nobject-lessons are closely connected with the teaching of Ezekiel. In\ndealing with the question of heredity in guilt, the prophet is led to set\nforth the character and fortunes of four different classes of men.\nFirst(431) we have two simple cases: the righteousness of the righteous\nshall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.\nThese have been respectively illustrated by the prosperity of Solomon and\nJotham and the misfortunes of Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, and Ahaz. Again,\ndeparting somewhat from the order of Ezekiel\u2014\u201cWhen the righteous turneth\naway from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according\nto all the abominations of the wicked man, shall he live? None of his\nrighteous deeds that he hath done shall be remembered; in his trespass\nthat he hath trespassed and in his sin that he hath sinned he shall\ndie\u201d\u2014here we have the principle that in Chronicles governs the Divine\ndealings with the kings who began to reign well and then fell away into\nsin: Asa, Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah.\n\nWe reached this point in our discussion of the doctrine of retribution in\nconnection with Asa. So far the lessons taught were salutary: they might\ndeter from sin; but they were gloomy and depressing: they gave little\nencouragement to hope for success in the struggle after righteousness, and\nsuggested that few would escape terrible penalties of failure. David and\nSolomon formed a class by themselves; an ordinary man could not aspire to\ntheir almost supernatural virtue. In his later history the chronicler is\nchiefly bent on illustrating the frailty of man and the wrath of God. The\nNew Testament teaches a similar lesson when it asks, \u201cIf the righteous is\nscarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear?\u201d(432) But in\nChronicles not even the righteous is saved. Again and again we are told at\na king\u2019s accession that he \u201cdid that which was good and right in the eyes\nof Jehovah\u201d; and yet before the reign closes he forfeits the Divine\nfavour, and at last dies ruined and disgraced.\n\nBut this sombre picture is relieved by occasional gleams of light. Ezekiel\nfurnishes a fourth type of religious experience: \u201cIf the wicked turn from\nall his sins that he hath committed, and keep all My statutes, and do that\nwhich is lawful and right, he shall live; he shall not die. None of his\ntransgressions that he hath committed shall be remembered against him; in\nhis righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in\nthe death of the wicked, saith the Lord Jehovah, and not rather that he\nshould return from his way and live?\u201d(433) The one striking and complete\nexample of this principle is the history of Manasseh. It is true that\nRehoboam also repented, but the chronicler does not make it clear that his\nrepentance was permanent. Manasseh is unique alike in extreme wickedness,\nsincere penitence, and thorough reformation. The reformation of Julius\nC\u00e6sar or of our Henry V., or, to take a different class of instance, the\nconversion of St. Paul, was nothing compared to the conversion of\nManasseh. It was as though Herod the Great or C\u00e6sar Borgia had been\nchecked midway in a career of cruelty and vice, and had thenceforward\nlived pure and holy lives, glorifying God by ministering to their\nfellow-men. Such a repentance gives us hope for the most abandoned. In the\nforgiveness of Manasseh the penitent sinner receives assurance that God\nwill forgive even the most guilty. The account of his closing years shows\nthat even a career of desperate wickedness in the past need not hinder the\npenitent from rendering acceptable service to God and ending his life in\nthe enjoyment of Divine favour and blessing. Manasseh becomes in the Old\nTestament what the Prodigal Son is in the New: the one great symbol of the\npossibilities of human nature and the infinite mercy of God.\n\nThe chronicler\u2019s theology is as simple and straightforward as that of\nEzekiel. Manasseh repents, submits himself, and is forgiven. His captivity\napparently had expiated his guilt, as far as expiation was necessary.\nNeither prophet nor chronicler was conscious of the moral difficulties\nthat have been found in so simple a plan of salvation. The problems of an\nobjective atonement had not yet risen above their horizon.\n\nThese incidents afford another illustration of the necessary limitations\nof ritual. In the great crisis of Manasseh\u2019s spiritual life, the Levitical\nordinances played no part; they moved on a lower level, and ministered to\nless urgent needs. Probably the worship of Jehovah was still suspended\nduring Manasseh\u2019s captivity; none the less Manasseh was able to make his\npeace with God. Even if they were punctually observed, of what use were\nservices at the Temple in Jerusalem to a penitent sinner at Babylon? When\nManasseh returned to Jerusalem, he restored the Temple worship, and\noffered sacrifices of peace-offerings and of thanksgiving; nothing is said\nabout sin-offerings. His sacrifices were not the condition of his pardon,\nbut the seal and token of a reconciliation already effected. The\nexperience of Manasseh anticipated that of the Jews of the Captivity: he\ndiscovered the possibility of fellowship with Jehovah, far away from the\nHoly Land, without temple, priest, or sacrifice. The chronicler, perhaps\nunconsciously already foreshadows the coming of the hour when men should\nworship the Father neither in the holy mountain of Samaria nor yet in\nJerusalem.\n\nBefore relating the outward acts which testified the sincerity of\nManasseh\u2019s repentance, the chronicler devotes a single sentence to the\nhappy influence of forgiveness and deliverance upon Manasseh himself. When\nhis prayer had been heard, and his exile was at an end, then Manasseh knew\nand acknowledged that Jehovah was God. Men first begin to know God when\nthey have been forgiven. The alienated and disobedient, if they think of\nHim at all, merely have glimpses of His vengeance and try to persuade\nthemselves that He is a stern Tyrant. By the penitent not yet assured of\nthe possibility of reconciliation God is chiefly thought of as a righteous\nJudge. What did the Prodigal Son know about his father when he asked for\nthe portion of goods that fell to him or while he was wasting his\nsubstance in riotous living? Even when he came to himself, he thought of\nthe father\u2019s house as a place where there was bread enough and to spare;\nand he supposed that his father might endure to see him living at home in\npermanent disgrace, on the footing of a hired servant. When he reached\nhome, after he had been met a great way on with compassion and been\nwelcomed with an embrace, he began for the first time to understand his\nfather\u2019s character. So the knowledge of God\u2019s love dawns upon the soul in\nthe blessed experience of forgiveness; and because love and forgiveness\nare more strange and unearthly than rebuke and chastisement, the sinner is\nhumbled by pardon far more than by punishment; and his trembling\nsubmission to the righteous Judge deepens into profounder reverence and\nawe for the God who can forgive, who is superior to all vindictiveness,\nwhose infinite resources enable Him to blot out the guilt, to cancel the\npenalty, and annul the consequences of sin.\n\n\n    \u201cThere is forgiveness with Thee,\n    That Thou mayest be feared.\u201d(434)\n\n\nThe words that stand in the forefront of the Lord\u2019s Prayer, \u201cHallowed be\nThy name,\u201d are virtually a petition that sinners may repent, and be\nconverted, and obtain forgiveness.\n\nIn seeking for a Christian parallel to the doctrine expounded by Ezekiel\nand illustrated by Chronicles, we have to remember that the permanent\nelements in primitive doctrine are often to be found by removing the\nlimitations which imperfect faith has imposed on the possibilities of\nhuman nature and Divine mercy. We have already suggested that the\nchronicler\u2019s somewhat rigid doctrine of temporal rewards and punishments\nsymbolises the inevitable influence of conduct on the development of\ncharacter. The doctrine of God\u2019s attitude towards backsliding and\nrepentance seems somewhat arbitrary as set forth by Ezekiel and\nChronicles. A man apparently is not to be judged by his whole life, but\nonly by the moral period that is closed by his death. If his last years be\npious, his former transgressions are forgotten; if his last years be evil,\nhis righteous deeds are equally forgotten. While we gratefully accept the\nforgiveness of sinners, such teaching as to backsliders seems a little\ncynical; and though, by God\u2019s grace and discipline, a man may be led\nthrough and out of sin into righteousness, we are naturally suspicious of\na life of \u201crighteous deeds\u201d which towards its close lapses into gross and\nopen sin. \u201cNemo repente turpissimus fit.\u201d We are inclined to believe that\nthe final lapse reveals the true bias of the whole character. But the\nchronicler suggests more than this: by his history of the almost uniform\nfailure of the pious kings to persevere to the end, he seems to teach that\nthe piety of early and mature life is either unreal or else is unable to\nsurvive as body and mind wear out. This doctrine has sometimes,\ninconsiderately no doubt, been taught from Christian pulpits; and yet the\ntruth of which the doctrine is a misrepresentation supplies a correction\nof the former principle that a life is to be judged by its close. Putting\naside any question of positive sin, a man\u2019s closing years sometimes seem\ncold, narrow, and selfish when once he was full of tender and considerate\nsympathy; and yet the man is no Asa or Amaziah who has deserted the living\nGod for idols of wood and stone. The man has not changed, only our\nimpression of him. Unconsciously we are influenced by the contrast between\nhis present state and the splendid energy and devotion of self-sacrifice\nthat marked his prime; we forget that inaction is his misfortune, and not\nhis fault; we overrate his ardour in the days when vigorous action was a\ndelight for its own sake; and we overlook the quiet heroism with which\nremnants of strength are still utilised in the Lord\u2019s service, and do not\nconsider that moments of fretfulness are due to decay and disease that at\nonce increase the need of patience and diminish the powers of endurance.\nMuscles and nerves slowly become less and less efficient; they fail to\ncarry to the soul full and clear reports of the outside world; they are no\nlonger satisfactory instruments by which the soul can express its feelings\nor execute its will. We are less able than ever to estimate the inner life\nof such by that which we see and hear. While we are thankful for the sweet\nserenity and loving sympathy which often make the hoary head a crown of\nglory, we are also entitled to judge some of God\u2019s more militant children\nby their years of arduous service, and not by their impatience of enforced\ninactivity.\n\nIf our author\u2019s statement of these truths seem unsatisfactory, we must\nremember that his lack of a doctrine of the future life placed him at a\nserious disadvantage. He wished to exhibit a complete picture of God\u2019s\ndealings with the characters of his history, so that their lives should\nfurnish exact illustrations of the working of sin and righteousness. He\nwas controlled and hampered by the idea that underlies many discussions in\nthe Old Testament: that God\u2019s righteous judgment upon a man\u2019s actions is\ncompletely manifested during his earthly life. It may be possible to\nassert an _eternal_ providence; but conscience and heart have long since\nrevolted against the doctrine that God\u2019s justice, to say nothing of His\nlove, is declared by the misery of lives that might have been innocent, if\nthey had ever had the opportunity of knowing what innocence meant. The\nchronicler worked on too small a scale for his subject. The entire Divine\neconomy of Him with whom a thousand years are as one day cannot be even\noutlined for a single soul in the history of its earthly existence. These\nnarratives of Jewish kings are only imperfect symbols of the infinite\npossibilities of the eternal providence. The moral of Chronicles is very\nmuch that of the Greek sage, \u201cCall no man happy till he is dead\u201d; but\nsince Christ has brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel,\nwe no longer pass final judgment upon either the man or his happiness by\nwhat we know of his life here. The decisive revelation of character, the\nfinal judgment upon conduct, the due adjustment of the gifts and\ndiscipline of God, are deferred to a future life. When these are\ncompleted, and the soul has attained to good or evil beyond all reversal,\nthen we shall feel, with Ezekiel and the chronicler, that there is no\nfurther need to remember either the righteous deeds or the transgressions\nof earlier stages of its history.\n\n\n\n\nChapter X. The Last Kings Of Judah. 2 Chron. xxxiv.-xxxvi.\n\n\nWhatever influence Manasseh\u2019s reformation exercised over his people\ngenerally, the taint of idolatry was not removed from his own family. His\nson Amon succeeded him at the age of two-and-twenty. Into his reign of two\nyears he compressed all the varieties of wickedness once practised by his\nfather, and undid the good work of Manasseh\u2019s later years. He recovered\nthe graven images which Manasseh had discarded, replaced them in their\nshrines, and worshipped them instead of Jehovah. But in his case there was\nno repentance, and he was cut off in his youth.\n\nIn the absence of any conclusive evidence as to the date of Manasseh\u2019s\nreformation, we cannot determine with certainty whether Amon received his\nearly training before or after his father returned to the worship of\nJehovah. In either case Manasseh\u2019s earlier history would make it difficult\nfor him to counteract any evil influence that drew Amon towards idolatry.\nAmon could set the example and perhaps the teaching of his father\u2019s former\ndays against any later exhortations to righteousness. When a father has\nhelped to lead his children astray, he cannot be sure that he will carry\nthem with him in his repentance.\n\nAfter Amon\u2019s assassination the people placed his son Josiah on the throne.\nLike Joash and Manasseh, Josiah was a child, only eight years old. The\nchronicler follows the general line of the history in the book of Kings,\nmodifying, abridging, and expanding, but introducing no new incidents; the\nreformation, the repairing of the Temple, the discovery of the book of the\nLaw, the Passover, Josiah\u2019s defeat and death at Megiddo, are narrated by\nboth historians. We have only to notice differences in a somewhat similar\ntreatment of the same subject.\n\nBeyond the general statement that Josiah \u201cdid that which was right in the\neyes of Jehovah\u201d we hear nothing about him in the book of Kings till the\neighteenth year of his reign, and his reformation and putting away of\nidolatry is placed in that year. The chronicler\u2019s authorities corrected\nthe statement that the pious king tolerated idolatry for eighteen years.\nThey record how in the eighth year of his reign, when he was sixteen, he\nbegan to seek after the God of David; and in his twelfth year he set about\nthe work of utterly destroying idols throughout the whole territory of\nIsrael, in the cities and ruins of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon, even\nunto Naphtali, as well as in Judah and Benjamin. Seeing that the cities\nassigned to Simeon were in the south of Judah, it is a little difficult to\nunderstand why they appear with the northern tribes, unless they are\nreckoned with them technically to make up the ancient number.\n\nThe consequence of this change of date is that in Chronicles the\nreformation precedes the discovery of the book of the Law, whereas in the\nolder history this discovery is the cause of the reformation. The\nchronicler\u2019s account of the idols and other apparatus of false worship\ndestroyed by Josiah is much less detailed than that of the book of Kings.\nTo have reproduced the earlier narrative in full would have raised serious\ndifficulties. According to the chronicler, Manasseh had purged Jerusalem\nof idols and idol altars; and Amon alone was responsible for any that\nexisted there at the accession of Josiah: but in the book of Kings Josiah\nfound in Jerusalem the altars erected by the kings of Judah and the horses\nthey had given to the sun. Manasseh\u2019s altars still stood in the courts of\nthe Temple; and over against Jerusalem there still remained the high\nplaces that Solomon had built for Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom. As the\nchronicler in describing Solomon\u2019s reign carefully omitted all mention of\nhis sins, so he omits this reference to his idolatry. Moreover, if he had\ninserted it, he would have had to explain how these high places escaped\nthe zeal of the many pious kings who did away with the high places.\nSimilarly, having omitted the account of the man of God who prophesied the\nruin of Jeroboam\u2019s sanctuary at Bethel, he here omits the fulfilment of\nthat prophecy.\n\nThe account of the repairing of the Temple is enlarged by the insertion of\nvarious details as to the names, functions, and zeal of the Levites,\namongst whom those who had skill in instruments of music seem to have had\nthe oversight of the workmen. We are reminded of the walls of Thebes,\nwhich rose out of the ground while Orpheus played upon his flute.\nSimilarly in the account of the assembly called to hear the contents of\nthe book of the Law the Levites are substituted for the prophets. This\nbook of the Law is said in Chronicles to have been given by Moses, but his\nname is not connected with the book in the parallel narrative in the book\nof Kings.\n\nThe earlier authority simply states that Josiah held a great passover;\nChronicles, as usual, describes the festival in detail. First of all, the\nking commanded the priests and Levites to purify themselves and take their\nplaces in due order, so that they might be ready to perform their sacred\nduties. The narrative is very obscure, but it seems that either during the\napostacy of Amon or on account of the recent Temple repairs the Ark had\nbeen removed from the Holy of holies. The Law had specially assigned to\nthe Levites the duty of carrying the Tabernacle and its furniture, and\nthey seem to have thought that they were only bound to exercise the\nfunction of carrying the Ark; they perhaps proposed to bear it in solemn\nprocession round the city as part of the celebration of the Passover,\nforgetting the words of David(435) that the Levites should no more carry\nthe Tabernacle and its vessels. They would have been glad to substitute\nthis conspicuous and honourable service for the laborious and menial work\nof flaying the victims. Josiah, however, commanded them to put the Ark\ninto the Temple and attend to their other duties.\n\nNext, the king and his nobles provided beasts of various kinds for the\nsacrifices and the Passover meal. Josiah\u2019s gifts were even more munificent\nthan those of Hezekiah. The latter had given a thousand bullocks and ten\nthousand sheep; Josiah gave just three times as many. Moreover, at\nHezekiah\u2019s passover no offerings of the princes are mentioned, but now\nthey added their gifts to those of the king. The heads of the priesthood\nprovided three hundred oxen and two thousand six hundred small cattle for\nthe priests, and the chiefs of the Levites five hundred oxen and five\nthousand small cattle for the Levites. But numerous as were the victims at\nJosiah\u2019s passover, they still fell far short of the great sacrifice(436)\nof twenty-two thousand oxen and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep which\nSolomon offered at the dedication of the Temple.\n\nThen began the actual work of the sacrifices: the victims were killed and\nflayed, and their blood was sprinkled on the altar; the burnt offerings\nwere distributed among the people; the Passover lambs were roasted, and\nthe other offerings boiled, and the Levites \u201ccarried them quickly to all\nthe children of the people.\u201d Apparently private individuals could not find\nthe means of cooking the bountiful provision made for them; and, to meet\nthe necessity of the case, the Temple courts were made kitchen as well as\nslaughterhouse for the assembled worshippers. The other offerings would\nnot be eaten with the Passover lamb, but would serve for the remaining\ndays of the feast.\n\nThe Levites not only provided for the people, for themselves, and the\npriests, but the Levites who ministered in the matter of the sacrifices\nalso prepared for their brethren who were singers and porters, so that the\nlatter were enabled to attend undisturbed to their own special duties; all\nthe members of the guild of porters were at the gates maintaining order\namong the crowd of worshippers; and the full strength of the orchestra and\nchoir contributed to the beauty and solemnity of the services. It was the\ngreatest Passover held by any Israelite king.\n\nJosiah\u2019s passover, like that of Hezekiah, was followed by a formidable\nforeign invasion; but whereas Hezekiah was rewarded for renewed loyalty by\na triumphant deliverance, Josiah was defeated and slain. These facts\nsubject the chronicler\u2019s theory of retribution to a severe strain. His\nperplexity finds pathetic expression in the opening words of the new\nsection, \u201cAfter all this,\u201d after all the idols had been put away, after\nthe celebration of the most magnificent Passover the monarchy had ever\nseen. After all this, when we looked for the promised rewards of piety\u2014for\nfertile seasons, peace and prosperity at home, victory and dominion\nabroad, tribute from subject peoples, and wealth from successful\ncommerce\u2014after all this, the rout of the armies of Jehovah at Megiddo, the\nflight and death of the wounded king, the lamentation over Josiah, the\nexaltation of a nominee of Pharaoh to the throne, and the payment of\ntribute to the Egyptian king. The chronicler has no complete explanation\nof this painful mystery, but he does what he can to meet the difficulties\nof the case. Like the great prophets in similar instances, he regards the\nheathen king as charged with a Divine commission. Pharaoh\u2019s appeal to\nJosiah to remain neutral should have been received by the Jewish king as\nan authoritative message from Jehovah. It was the failure to discern in a\nheathen king the mouthpiece and prophet of Jehovah that cost Josiah his\nlife and Judah its liberty.\n\nThe chronicler had no motive for lingering over the last sad days of the\nmonarchy; the rest of his narrative is almost entirely abridged from the\nbook of Kings. Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah pass over the\nscene in rapid and melancholy succession. In the case of Jehoahaz, who\nonly reigned three months, the chronicler omits the unfavourable judgment\nrecorded in the book of Kings; but he repeats it for the other three, even\nfor the poor lad of eight(437) who was carried away captive after a reign\nof three months and ten days. The chronicler had not learnt that kings can\ndo no wrong; on the other hand, the ungodly policy of Jehoiachin\u2019s\nministers is labelled with the name of the boy-sovereign.\n\nEach of these kings in turn was deposed and carried away into captivity,\nunless indeed Jehoiakim is an exception. In the book of Kings we are told\nthat he slept with his fathers, _i.e._, that he died and was buried in the\nroyal tombs at Jerusalem, a statement which the LXX. inserts here also,\nspecifying, however, that he was buried in the garden of Uzza. If the\npious Josiah were punished for a single error by defeat and death, why was\nthe wicked Jehoiakim allowed to reign till the end of his life and then\ndie in his bed? The chronicler\u2019s information differed from that of the\nearlier narrative in a way that removed, or at any rate suppressed the\ndifficulty. He omits the statement that Jehoiakim slept with his fathers,\nand tells us(438) that Nebuchadnezzar bound him in fetters to carry him to\nBabylon. Casual readers would naturally suppose that this purpose was\ncarried out, and that the Divine justice was satisfied by Jehoiakim\u2019s\ndeath in captivity; and yet if they compared this passage with that in the\nbook of Kings, it might occur to them that after the king had been put in\nchains something might have led Nebuchadnezzar to change his mind, or,\nlike Manasseh, Jehoiakim might have repented and been allowed to return.\nBut it is very doubtful whether the chronicler\u2019s authorities contemplated\nthe possibility of such an interpretation; it is scarcely fair to credit\nthem with all the subtle devices of modern commentators.\n\nThe real conclusion of the chronicler\u2019s history of the kings of the house\nof David is a summary of the sins of the last days of the monarchy and of\nthe history of its final ruin in xxxvi. 14-20.(439) All the chief of the\npriests and of the people were given over to the abominations of idolatry;\nand in spite of constant and urgent admonitions from the prophets of\nJehovah, they hardened their hearts, and mocked the messengers of God, and\ndespised His words, and misused His prophets, until the wrath of Jehovah\narose against His people, and there was no healing.\n\nHowever, to this peroration a note is added that the length of the\nCaptivity was fixed at seventy years, in order that the land might \u201cenjoy\nher sabbaths.\u201d This note rests upon Lev. xxv. 1-7, according to which the\nland was to be left fallow every seventh year. The seventy years captivity\nwould compensate for seventy periods of six years each during which no\nsabbatical years had been observed. Thus the Captivity, with the four\nhundred and twenty previous years of neglect, would be equivalent to\nseventy sabbatical periods. There is no economy in keeping back what is\ndue to God.\n\nMoreover, the editor who separated Chronicles from the book of Ezra and\nNehemiah was loath to allow the first part of the history to end in a\ngloomy record of sin and ruin. Modern Jews, in reading the last chapter of\nIsaiah, rather than conclude with the ill-omened words of the last two\nverses, repeat a previous portion of the chapter. So here to the history\nof the ruin of Jerusalem the editor has appended two verses from the\nopening of the book of Ezra, which contain the decree of Cyrus authorising\nthe return from the Captivity. And thus Chronicles concludes in the middle\nof a sentence which is completed in the book of Ezra: \u201cWho is there among\nyou of all his people? Jehovah his God be with him, and let him go up....\u201d\n\nSuch a conclusion suggests two considerations which will form a fitting\nclose to our exposition. Chronicles is not a finished work; it has no\nformal end; it rather breaks off abruptly like an interrupted diary. In\nlike manner the book of Kings concludes with a note as to the treatment of\nthe captive Jehoiachin at Babylon: the last verse runs, \u201cAnd for his\nallowance there was a continual allowance given him of the king, every day\na portion, all the days of his life.\u201d The book of Nehemiah has a short\nfinal prayer: \u201cRemember me, O my God, for good\u201d; but the preceding\nparagraph is simply occupied with the arrangements for the wood offering\nand the first-fruits. So in the New Testament the history of the Church\nbreaks off with the statement that St. Paul abode two whole years in his\nown hired house, preaching the kingdom of God. The sacred writers\nrecognise the continuity of God\u2019s dealings with His people; they do not\nsuggest that one period can be marked off by a clear dividing line or\ninterval from another. Each historian leaves, as it were, the loose ends\nof his work ready to be taken up and continued by his successors. The Holy\nSpirit seeks to stimulate the Church to a forward outlook, that it may\nexpect and work for a future wherein the power and grace of God will be no\nless manifest than in the past. Moreover, the final editor of Chronicles\nhas shown himself unwilling that the book should conclude with a gloomy\nrecord of sin and ruin, and has appended a few lines to remind his readers\nof the new life of faith and hope that lay beyond the Captivity. In so\ndoing, he has echoed the key-note of prophecy: ever beyond man\u2019s\ntransgression and punishment the prophets saw the vision of his\nforgiveness and restoration to God.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 Cf. _Ezra_; _Nehemiah_; _Esther_, by Professor Adeney, in\n      \u201cExpositor\u2019s Bible.\u201d\n\n    2 Ezra iii. 12.\n\n    3 Isa. lxvi. 22.\n\n    4 Quoted for _Asa_ (2 Chron. xvi. 11); _Amaziah_ (2 Chron. xxv. 26);\n      _Ahaz_ (2 Chron. xxviii. 26).\n\n    5 Quoted for _Jotham_ (2 Chron. xxvii. 7); _Josiah_ (2 Chron. xxxv.\n      26, 27).\n\n    6 Quoted for _Manasseh_ (2 Chron. xxxiii, 18).\n\n    7 Quoted for _David_ (1 Chron. xxix. 29).\n\n    8 Quoted for _David_ (1 Chron. xxix. 29) and _Solomon_ (2 Chron. ix.\n      29).\n\n    9 Quoted for _David_ (1 Chron. xxix. 29).\n\n   10 Quoted for _Rehoboam_ (2 Chron. xii. 15).\n\n   11 Quoted for _Jehoshaphat_ (2 Chron. xx. 34).\n\n   12 Quoted for _Manasseh_ (2 Chron. xxxiii. 19). \u201cSeers,\u201d A.V., R.V.\n      Marg., with LXX.; R.V., with Hebrew text, \u201cHozai.\u201d The passage is\n      probably corrupt.\n\n   13 Quoted for _Solomon_ (2 Chron. ix. 29).\n\n   14 Quoted for _Hezekiah_ (2 Chron. xxxii. 32).\n\n   15 Quoted for _Joash_ (2 Chron. xxiv. 27).\n\n   16 Quoted for _Abijah_ (2 Chron. xiii, 22).\n\n   17 Quoted for _Uzziah_ (2 Chron. xxvi. 22).\n\n   18 Quoted for _Solomon_ (2 Chron. ix. 29).\n\n   19 Cf. pp. 17, 18.\n\n   20 2 Chron. xx. 34.\n\n   21 Chron. xxxii. 32.\n\n   22 R.V. marg.\n\n   23 R.V.\n\n_   24 E.g._, the wars of Jotham (2 Chron. xxvii. 7).\n\n   25 2 Chron. xiii. 22; xxiv. 27. The LXX., however, does not read\n      \u201cMidrash\u201d in either case; and it is quite possible that glosses have\n      attached themselves to the text of Chronicles.\n\n   26 Cf. 2 Sam. vi. 12-20 with 1 Chron. xv., xvi.\n\n   27 Cf. 2 Kings xi.; 2 Chron. xxiii.\n\n   28 The last two classes are not easily distinguished; but the additions\n      which introduce the Levitical system into earlier history are\n      clearly the work of the chronicler or his immediate predecessor, if\n      such a predecessor be assumed, or were found in somewhat late\n      sources. This is also probably true of other explanatory matter.\n\n   29 Cf. 2 Sam. iv. with 1 Chron. viii. 34, also 2 Sam. vii. 7 with 1\n      Chron. xvii. 6, and 2 Sam. xvii. 25 with 1 Chron. ii. 17. In both\n      these instances Chronicles preserves the correct text.\n\n   30 Cf. Book II., Chap. IV.\n\n   31 Oehler, _Old Testament Theology_, i. 283 (Eng. trans.).\n\n   32 Nestle, _Die Israelitischen Eigennamen_, p. 27. The present chapter\n      is largely indebted to this standard monograph.\n\n   33 Nestle.\n\n   34 1 Chron. vii. 14.\n\n   35 Philo, _De Cong. Qu\u00e6r. Erud. Grat._, 8.\n\n   36 Hiller\u2019s _Onomasticon ap._, Nestle 11.\n\n   37 vii. 8.\n\n   38 i. 35.\n\n   39 xviii. 15.\n\n   40 i. 20.\n\n   41 viii. 36.\n\n   42 ii. 18.\n\n   43 iii. 20.\n\n   44 iv. 3.\n\n   45 Bertheau, i. 1.\n\n   46 iv. 22.\n\n   47 iv. 22.\n\n   48 The translation of these words is not quite certain.\n\n   49 Nestle, p. 68.\n\n   50 Num. i. 10.\n\n   51 Num. i. 12.\n\n   52 Num. i. 6.\n\n   53 Cf. p. 40.\n\n   54 xi. 30; vii. 25 (Nestle).\n\n   55 Nestle.\n\n   56 Joel i. 15; Isa. xiii. 6. It is not necessary here to discuss either\n      the etymological or the theological history of these words in their\n      earliest usage, nor need we do more than recall the fact that\n      Jehovah was the term in common use as the personal name of the God\n      of Israel, while El was rare and sometimes generic.\n\n   57 Ezra ii. 61-63; Neh. vii, 63-65.\n\n   58 Acts xvii. 26.\n\n   59 Col. iii. 11.\n\n   60 Josh. xiv. 6.\n\n   61 1 Sam. xxvii 10.\n\n   62 Ver. 55.\n\n   63 The occurrence of Caleb the son of Jephunneh in iv, 15, vi. 56, in\n      no way militates against this view: the chronicler, like other\n      redactors, is simply inserting borrowed material without correcting\n      it. _Chelubai_ in ii. 9 stands for _Caleb_; cf. ii. 18.\n\n   64 viii. 33-40; ix. 35-44. We have used Mephibosheth as more familiar,\n      but Chronicles reads Meribbaal, which is more correct.\n\n   65 Psalm lxxviii. 59, 60, 67-69.\n\n   66 iv. 14, 21-23.\n\n   67 1 Chron. xv.\n\n   68 Cf. 2 Chron. xxix. 12 and xxx. 22.\n\n   69 2 Chron. xvii. 8.\n\n   70 Exod. xxv-xxxix.; 1 Kings vi.; 1 Chron. xxix.; 2 Chron. iii., v.\n\n   71 1 Chron. xv. 4-10.\n\n   72 1 Chron. xii. 23-37.\n\n   73 John iii. 8.\n\n   74 i. 10.\n\n   75 i. 19.\n\n   76 i. 46.\n\n   77 Cf. Gen. xxxvi. 24 and 1 Chron. i. 40.\n\n_   78 I.e._, Achan (ii. 3, 7).\n\n   79 1 Sam. ii. 7, 8.\n\n   80 Vv. 17, 18, as they stand, do not make sense. The second sentence of\n      ver. 18 should be read before \u201cand she bare Miriam\u201d in ver. 17.\n      Mered and Bithiah formed a tempting subject for the rabbis, and gave\n      occasion for some of their usual grotesque fancies. Mered has been\n      identified by them both with Caleb and Moses.\n\n   81 Deut. vii. 3; Josh. xxiii. 12; Ezra ix. 1, x.; Neh. xiii. 23.\n\n   82 iv. 9, 10.\n\n   83 The reading on which this translation is based is obtained by an\n      alteration of the vowels of the Masoretic text; cf. Bertheau, i. 1.\n\n   84 Gen. xxviii. 20; xxxiii. 20.\n\n   85 This translation is obtained by slightly altering the Masoretic\n      text.\n\n   86 iv. 41; cf. R.V.\n\n   87 1 Sam. xv.\n\n   88 Judges i. 17.\n\n   89 Judges i. 22-26.\n\n   90 Judges xviii.\n\n   91 Vv. 7-10, 18-22.\n\n   92 Deut. xxxiii. 20; 1 Chron. xii. 8, 21.\n\n   93 Gen. xxv. 15.\n\n   94 Gen. xvi. 12.\n\n_   95 Lay of the Last Minstrel_, iv. 3.\n\n   96 Vv. 25, 26. Note the curious spelling _Tilgath-pilneser_ for the\n      more usual _Tiglath-pileser_.\n\n   97 Cf. Bertheau, i. 1.\n\n   98 In Josh. xix. 42, xxi. 24, Aijalon is given to Dan; in Judges i. 34\n      it is given to Dan, but we are told that Amorites retained\n      possession of it, but became tributary to the house of Joseph; in 2\n      Chron. xi. 10 it is given to \u201cJudah and Benjamin.\u201d As a frontier\n      town, it frequently changed hands.\n\n   99 2 Chron. xvi. 9.\n\n  100 2 Chron. xx. 20.\n\n  101 2 Chron. xxix. 6.\n\n  102 1 Chron. vi. 31-48, xv. 16-20; cf. psalm titles.\n\n  103 1 Chron. vi. 33, 37; cf. Psalm lxxxviii. (title).\n\n  104 1 Chron. xvi. 38, 42.\n\n  105 1 Chron. ix. 26-32; cf. 1 Chron. xxiii. 24-32.\n\n  106 2 Chron. xxix.-xxxi.; xxxiv.; xxxv.\n\n  107 2 Chron. xxix. 27, 28.\n\n  108 Num. iv. 3, 23, 35.\n\n  109 1 Chron. xxiii. 24, 27. Probably \u201ctwenty\u201d should be read for\n      \u201cthirty\u201d in ver. 3.\n\n  110 1 Chron. xxiv. 6.\n\n  111 2 Chron. xxxiv. 13; xxxv. 3.\n\n  112 2 Chron. xxxv. 3; cf. 1 Chron. xxiii 26.\n\n  113 1 Chron. xxvi. 29.\n\n  114 2 Chron. xvii. 7, 9.\n\n  115 Wellhausen, _History of Israel_, p. 191; cf. 2 Chron. xix. 4-11.\n\n  116 1 Chron. ix. 31, 32.\n\n  117 Ezra ii. 36-39.\n\n  118 1 Chron. xxiv. 1-19.\n\n  119 Luke i. 5.\n\n_  120 Bell. Jud._, IV. iii. 8.\n\n  121 1 Chron. xxiv. 20-31; 2 Chron. xxxi. 2.\n\n  122 1 Chron. xxv.\n\n  123 1 Chron. xxvi.; Ezra vi. 18; Neh. xi. 36.\n\n  124 Recently a complaint was received at the General Post-office that\n      some newspapers sent from France had failed to arrive. It was stated\n      that the names of the papers were\u2014_Il me manque_; _Plusieurs;\n      Journaux_; _i.e._, I am short of \u201cSeveral\u201d \u201cPapers.\u201d\n\n  125 1 Chron. ix. 3.\n\n  126 Luke ii. 36.\n\n  127 Levi of course excepted.\n\n  128 1 Chron. iii.\n\n  129 ii. 55.\n\n  130 iv. 21-23.\n\n  131 Maspero, _Ancient Egypt and Assyria_, p. 60.\n\n  132 Craddock, _Despot of Bromsgrove Edge_. Teck Jepson is, of course, an\n      imaginary character, but none the less representative.\n\n  133 Cave, _Scripture Doctrine of Sacrifice_, p. 163.\n\n  134 George Eliot, _Janet\u2019s Repentance_, chap. xix.\n\n  135 2 Chron. xii. 1, 6.\n\n  136 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18.\n\n  137 Ezra ii. 2.\n\n  138 Isa. xlix. 6.\n\n  139 Isa. ix. 7.\n\n  140 Isa. xvi. 5.\n\n  141 Isa. xxxvii. 35.\n\n  142 Isa. xxxviii. 5.\n\n  143 Acts ii 29.\n\n  144 Hos. iii. 5.\n\n  145 Amos ix. 11.\n\n  146 Micah v. 2.\n\n  147 Jer. xxiii. 5, 6; cf. xxxiii. 15 and Isa. iv. 2, xi. 1. The Hebrew\n      word used in the last passage is different from that in the\n      preceding.\n\n  148 Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24; xxxvii. 24, 25.\n\n  149 Zech. iii. 8; the text in vi. 12 is probably corrupt.\n\n  150 Hag. ii. 23.\n\n  151 Zech. xii. 8.\n\n  152 Written after the death of Pompey.\n\n  153 Schultz, _Old Testament Theology_, ii. 444.\n\n  154 An incidental reference is made to these facts in 1 Chron. xii. 19.\n\n  155 2 Sam. iii. 39.\n\n  156 2 Sam. v. 21; 1 Chron. xiv. 12.\n\n  157 Deut. xxiv. 16, quoted in 2 Chron. xxv. 4.\n\n  158 2 Sam. xxi. 19; 1 Chron. xx. 5.\n\n  159 1 Chron. x. 14.\n\n  160 Cf. xi. 1-9; xii. 23-xiii. 14; xv.\n\n  161 1 Chron. xi. 2.\n\n  162 1 Chron. ii. 15.\n\n  163 1 Chron. xii. 1, 19. There is no certain indication of the date of\n      the events in xi. 10-25. The fact that a \u201chold\u201d is mentioned in xi.\n      16, as in xii. 8, 16, is not conclusive proof that they refer to the\n      same period.\n\n  164 xii. 20.\n\n  165 1 Chron. xxix. 27.\n\n  166 xi. 10-47; xx. 4-8.\n\n  167 xiii. 14-xvi.\n\n  168 xvii.\n\n  169 xviii.; xx. 3.\n\n_  170 I.e._, virtually Jehovah our God and the only true God.\n\n  171 For a more detailed treatment of this incident see chap. ix.\n\n  172 xxi.-xxix.\n\n  173 xxix. 20-22, 28.\n\n  174 xvi. 8-36.\n\n  175 xvii. 16-27.\n\n  176 For a short exposition of this passage see Book. IV., Chap. i.\n\n  177 1 Chron. xi. 15-19.\n\n  178 xxix. 20.\n\n  179 Rom. xiv. 22.\n\n  180 2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 Chron. xx. 3.\n\n  181 Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_, i. 205.\n\n  182 x. 14; xi. 3.\n\n  183 xii. 38.\n\n  184 xxix. 1, 22.\n\n  185 xiii. 2-4.\n\n  186 1 Sam. xxiii. 9-13; xxx. 7, 8.\n\n  187 xxv. 1, 2.\n\n  188 xiii. 1.\n\n  189 xxviii. 1.\n\n  190 xxix. 22.\n\n  191 But cf. 2 Chr. xxvi.\n\n  192 Cf. xvii. 4-15 and xxviii. 2-10.\n\n  193 xiii. 1-14.\n\n  194 The casual reference in Jer. lii. 20 is only an apparent exception.\n      The passage is really historical, and not prophetic.\n\n  195 Deut. xvii. 16, 17; cf. 2 Chron. i. 14-17 and 1 Kings xi. 3-8.\n\n  196 Psalms lxxii. and cxxvii. are attributed to him, the latter,\n      however, only in the Hebrew Bible.\n\n  197 Ecclus. xlvii. 12-21.\n\n  198 Matt. xii. 42.\n\n  199 Matt. vi. 29.\n\n  200 Acts vii. 47.\n\n  201 1 Chron. xxix. 25.\n\n  202 2 Chron. ix. 22, 23.\n\n  203 2 Chron. viii. 11.\n\n  204 Neh. xiii. 26.\n\n  205 Such changes occur throughout, and need not be further noticed\n      unless some special interest attaches to them.\n\n  206 Kings v. 13; ix. 22, which seems to contradict this, is an editorial\n      note.\n\n  207 2 Chron. ii. 2, 17, 18; viii. 7-10.\n\n  208 1 Kings ix. 11, 12.\n\n  209 2 Chron. viii. 1, 2, R.V.\n\n  210 1 Chron. xxii. 9.\n\n  211 1 Chron. xxix. 23, 24.\n\n  212 2 Chron. i. 7-13.\n\n  213 2 Chron. i. 14-17.\n\n  214 v. 11, 12, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  215 vi. 41, 42, peculiar to Chronicles, apparently based on Psalm\n      cxxxii. 8-10.\n\n  216 1 Chron. xxi. 26; 2 Chron. vii. 1-3, both peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  217 vii. 8-10, mostly peculiar to Chronicles. The text in 1 Kings viii.\n      65 has been interpolated from Chronicles.\n\n  218 vii. 13-15, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  219 viii. 3, 4, peculiar to Chronicles. Hamath is apparently referred to\n      as a possession of Judah in 2 Kings xiv. 28.\n\n  220 viii. 12-16, peculiar in this form to Chronicles, but based upon 1\n      Kings ix. 25.\n\n  221 ix., as in 1 Kings x. 1-13.\n\n  222 ix. 31.\n\n  223 ix. 28.\n\n  224 It is not suggested that the chronicler intended to convey this\n      impression, or that it would be felt by most of his readers.\n\n  225 xiv. 3, 5, contradicting 1 Kings xv. 14 and apparently 2 Chron. xv.\n      17.\n\n  226 xv. 8-14, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  227 xv. 18, 19.\n\n  228 xvii. 6 contradicts 1 Kings xxii. 43 and 2 Chron. xx. 33.\n\n  229 xvii. 7-9, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  230 xxiv. 1-14.\n\n  231 xxi. 11, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  232 xxv. 4.\n\n  233 2 Chron. xxviii. 24-xxxi., mostly peculiar to Chronicles; but\n      compare Kings xviii. 4-7, which mentions the taking away of the high\n      places.\n\n  234 xxxiii. 16.\n\n  235 xxxiv.; xxxv.\n\n  236 xxx. 2.\n\n  237 xxii. 1; xxiii. 1-15; xxvi. 1; xxxiii. 25; xxxvi. 1.\n\n  238 xxv. 12.\n\n  239 xvi. 12.\n\n  240 xx. 37.\n\n  241 xxiv. 20-27.\n\n  242 xxv. 14-27.\n\n  243 xxvi. 16-23.\n\n  244 xxxii. 25-33.\n\n  245 xxxv. 20-27.\n\n  246 Milton, Hymn to the Nativity.\n\n  247 Tennyson, In Memoriam.\n\n  248 2 Chron. ix. 1.\n\n  249 Prov. xxxi. 1-9.\n\n  250 Articles XXI. and XXXVII.\n\n  251 Eph. ii. 12.\n\n  252 2 Chron. xii. 12, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  253 1 Kings xv. 3.\n\n  254 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11-20, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  255 2 Kings xxiii. 32.\n\n  256 2 Kings xvi. 5.\n\n  257 Isa. viii. 2.\n\n  258 2 Chron. xxxiii. 9.\n\n  259 2 Chron. xxxvi. 5, 8, 11.\n\n  260 2 Chron. xxviii. 5-15, peculiar to Chronicles; cf. 2 Kings xvi. 5,\n      6.\n\n  261 2 Chron. xxviii. 16-25, peculiar to Chronicles; cf. 2 Kings xvi.\n      7-18.\n\n  262 xxviii. 27, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  263 2 Chron. xi. 13, 14, xxix. 34, xxx. 27, all peculiar to Chronicles.\n      In xxx. 27 the text is doubtful; many authorities have \u201cthe priests\n      and the Levites.\u201d\n\n_  264 I.e._, in the view given us by the chronicler of the period of the\n      monarchy, after the Return the priests were far more numerous than\n      the Levites.\n\n  265 1 Chron. xxvi. 30-32.\n\n  266 2 Chron. xix. 4-11.\n\n  267 2 Chron. xv. 3. In the older literature the phrase would bear a more\n      special and technical meaning.\n\n  268 Exod. xxxii. 26-35.\n\n  269 Num. xxv. 3.\n\n  270 Psalm cvi. 30, 31.\n\n  271 1 Chron. xii. 23-28.\n\n  272 1 Chron. xxvii. 5; cf. however, R.V. marg.\n\n  273 2 Chron. xiii. 12.\n\n  274 2 Chron. xxiii. 7. All the passages referred to in this paragraph\n      are peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  275 Neh. iv. 17.\n\n  276 1 Macc. v. 67.\n\n  277 1 Chron. xiii. 8; xvi. 2.\n\n  278 1 Chron. xxix. 10-19.\n\n  279 2 Chron. vi.\n\n  280 2 Chron. xx. 4-13; xxx. 6-9, 18-21, 27.\n\n  281 2 Chron. xxxv.\n\n  282 1 Chron. xiii. 10.\n\n  283 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-23.\n\n  284 2 Chron. xxxi. 3-5.\n\n  285 Mal. i. 8; iii. 4, 10.\n\n  286 2 Chron. xxxi. 10.\n\n  287 Exod. xv. 3.\n\n  288 Psalm lxxiv. 8, 9. This psalm is commonly regarded as Maccab\u00e6an, but\n      may be as early as the chronicler or even earlier.\n\n  289 1 Macc. iv. 46.\n\n  290 Ezra ii. 63.\n\n  291 2 Chron. xxix. 25, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  292 2 Chron. xii. 5-8, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  293 2 Chron. xv.-xvi. 10, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  294 2 Chron. xix. 2, 3, xx. 14-18, 37, all peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  295 xxi. 12-15, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  296 xxiv. 18-22, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  297 xiv. 15, 16, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  298 2 Kings xix. 5-7, 20-34.\n\n  299 xxxii. 20.\n\n  300 xxxiii. 10, 18.\n\n  301 xxxv. 21, 22, 25, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  302 1 Esdras i. 28.\n\n  303 Ezra v. 1; vi. 14.\n\n  304 Neh. vi. 14.\n\n  305 1 Chron. xii. 18, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  306 Acts ii. 30.\n\n  307 2 Kings iv. 42.\n\n  308 Abbott, _Through Nature to Christ_, p. 295.\n\n  309 Jer. xv. 10.\n\n  310 Deut. xviii. 18.\n\n  311 Ecclus. xlix. 10.\n\n  312 R.V. \u201cdelight in\u201d is somewhat too strong.\n\n  313 It is, however, possible that the text in Samuel is a corruption of\n      text more closely parallel to that of Chronicles.\n\n  314 Noldius and R. Salom. _apud_ Bertheau i. 1.\n\n  315 Josh. xviii. 28; Judges i. 21, as against Josh. xv. 63; Judges i. 8,\n      which assign the city to Judah.\n\n  316 1 Chron. xxvii. 23, 24.\n\n  317 Ver. 7 is apparently a general anticipation of the narrative in vv.\n      9-15.\n\n  318 Josh. v. 13.\n\n  319 Schultz, _Old Testament Theology_, ii. 270.\n\n  320 Exod. iv. 21; Josh. xi. 20; 1 Sam. xix. 9, 10; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1; 1\n      Kings xxii. 20-23.\n\n  321 Prov. xvi. 4; Lam. iii. 38; Isa. xlv. 7.\n\n  322 Zech. iii. 1.\n\n  323 Jer. vii. 12-14; xxvi. 6.\n\n  324 1 Chron. xxviii. 19.\n\n  325 Heb. vii. 14.\n\n  326 Hos. xii. 13.\n\n  327 Schultz, _Old Testament Theology_, ii. 353.\n\n  328 2 Chron. xxx. 6; 1 Kings xviii. 36.\n\n  329 1 Chron. xvi. 13, 17; Gen. xxxii. 28.\n\n  330 Gen. xxiii. 4; cf. Psalms xxxix. 13, cxix. 19.\n\n  331 Job viii. 9.\n\n  332 Called, however, at that time Antonia.\n\n  333 viii. 9.\n\n  334 xi. 5-xii. 1, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  335 xii. 2-8, 12, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  336 xii. 14, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  337 Ecclus. xlvii. 23.\n\n  338 xiii. 3-22, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  339 Josh. xviii. 22.\n\n  340 Judges ix. 8.\n\n  341 Num. xviii. 19.\n\n  342 2 Chron. x. 15.\n\n  343 This verse must of course be understood to give his whole family\n      history, and not merely that of his three years\u2019 reign.\n\n  344 xiv. 1, 7, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  345 xiv. 3-9, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  346 1 Chron. xii., etc.; 2 Chron. xi. 5 ff., xvii. 12 ff., xxvi. 9 ff.\n      xxvii. 4 ff., xxxiii. 14.\n\n  347 xiv. 9-15.\n\n  348 So R.V. marg.; R.V. text (with which A.V. is in substantial\n      agreement): \u201cThere fell of the Ethiopians so many that they could\n      not recover themselves\u201d; _i.e._, the routed army were never able to\n      rally.\n\n  349 The second reformation is dated early in Asa\u2019s fifteenth year, and\n      Abijah only reigned three years.\n\n  350 xv., based upon 1 Kings xv. 13-15, but the great bulk of the chapter\n      is peculiar to Chronicles; the original passage from Kings is\n      reproduced, with slight changes in vv. 16-18.\n\n  351 2 Sam. xii. 9-11. \u201cBarak\u201d with LXX. and Peshite; Masoretic text has\n      \u201cBedan.\u201d\n\n  352 Judges v. 6, 7; vi. 11; viii. 15-17; ix.; xii. 1-7; xx.; xxi.\n\n  353 Cf. 1 Kings xv. 12.\n\n  354 1 Chron. ix. 3.\n\n  355 Exod. xxii. 20; Deut. xiii. 5, 9, 15.\n\n  356 1 Kings xv. 16, 32, 33.\n\n  357 xvi. 7-10, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  358 Isa. vii. 17.\n\n  359 Isa. xxxi. 1; xxx. 3.\n\n  360 Jer. ii. 36.\n\n  361 Zech. iv. 10.\n\n  362 The date, as before, is peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  363 xvi. 12_b_, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n_  364 Time and Tide_, xii. 67.\n\n  365 George Eliot, _Romola_, xxi.\n\n  366 Part II., Chap. IX.\n\n  367 xvii., peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  368 1 Chron. xviii. 1-3.\n\n  369 xix. 1-3, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  370 xix. 4-11, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  371 Milman, _Latin Christianity_, Book XI., Chap. I.\n\n  372 xx. 1-30, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  373 So R.V. marg., with the LXX. The Targum has \u201cEdomites,\u201d the A.V. is\n      not justified by the Hebrew, and the R.V. does not make sense.\n\n  374 Cf. 1 Chron. iv. 41, R.V.; and 2 Chron. xxvi. 7.\n\n  375 One Hebrew manuscript is quoted as having this reading. A.R.V., with\n      the ordinary Masoretic text, have \u201cSyria\u201d; but it is simply absurd\n      to suppose that a multitude from beyond the sea from Syria would\n      first make their appearance on the western shore of the Dead Sea.\n\n  376 2 Chron. iv. 9.\n\n  377 Ver. 9; cf. 2 Chron. vi. 28, and the whole paragraph (vv. 22-30) of\n      which our verse is a brief abstract.\n\n  378 Not Ziz, as A.R.V.\n\n  379 \u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05ea \u05e7\u05d3\u05e9, literally, as A.R.V., \u201cbeauty of holiness\u201d; _i.e._, sacred\n      robes. Translate with R.V. marg. \u201cpraise in the beauty of holiness,\u201d\n      not, as A.R.V., \u201cpraise the beauty of holiness.\u201d\n\n  380 Exod. xiv. 30.\n\n  381 With R.V. marg.\n\n  382 The identification of the valley of Berachah with the valley of\n      Jehoshaphat, close to Jerusalem and mentioned by Josephus, is a mere\n      theory, quite at variance with the topographical evidence.\n\n  383 Kings xxii. 48, 49.\n\n  384 2 Chron. xxiv. 24, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  385 Psalm xx. 7.\n\n  386 1 Macc. ii. 35-38.\n\n  387 xxi. 2-4, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  388 Vv. 5-10; cf. 2 Kings viii. 17-22.\n\n  389 xxi. 11-19, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  390 So R.V. marg., with LXX. and Vulgate A.R.V. have \u201cmountains,\u201d with\n      Masoretic text.\n\n  391 Jer. xxix.; xxxvi.\n\n  392 Green\u2019s _Shorter History_, p. 404.\n\n  393 xxii. 1_b_, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  394 The Hebrew original of the A.R.V., \u201cdeparted without being desired,\u201d\n      is as obscure as the English of our versions. The most probable\n      translation is, \u201cHe behaved so as to please no one.\u201d The A.R.V.\n      apparently mean that no one regretted his death.\n\n  395 We need not discuss in detail the question of Ahaziah\u2019s age at his\n      accession. The age of forty-two, given in 2 Chron. xxii. 2, is\n      simply impossible, seeing that his father was only forty years old\n      when he died. The Peshito and Arabic versions have followed 2 Kings\n      viii. 26, and altered forty-two to twenty-two; and the LXX. reads\n      twenty years. But twenty-two years still presents difficulties.\n      According to this reading, Ahaziah, Jehoram\u2019s youngest son, was born\n      when his father was only eighteen, and Jehoram having had several\n      sons before the age of eighteen, had none afterwards.\n\n  396 xiii. 7_a_, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  397 Cf. p. 20.\n\n  398 Cf. xxv. 2 with 2 Kings xiv. 4, xxvi. 4 with 2 Kings xv. 4, xxvii. 2\n      with 2 Kings xv. 34, where similar statements are omitted by the\n      chronicler.\n\n  399 2 Kings xii. 9.\n\n  400 Exod. xxx. 11-16.\n\n  401 Neh. x. 32.\n\n  402 xxiv. 14-22, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  403 Curiously enough, Jehoiada\u2019s name does not occur in the list of\n      high-priests in 1 Chron. vi. 1-12.\n\n  404 1 Chron. xxviii. 9; 2 Chron. vii. 19, xii. 5, xiii. 10, xv. 2, xxi.\n      10, xxviii. 6, xxix. 6, xxxiv. 25.\n\n  405 Cf. 2 Kings xii. 17, 18, of which this narrative is probably an\n      adaptation.\n\n  406 xxv. 5-13, peculiar to Chronicles, except that the account of the\n      war with Edom is expanded from the brief note in Kings. Cf. ver.\n      11_b_ with 2 Kings xiv. 7.\n\n  407 In the phrase \u201cfrom Samaria to Beth-horon,\u201d \u201cSamaria\u201d apparently\n      means the northern kingdom, and not the city, _i.e._, from the\n      borders of Samaria; the chronicler has fallen into the nomenclature\n      of his own age.\n\n  408 For the discussion of the chronicler\u2019s account of Ahaz see Book\n      III., Chap. VII.\n\n  409 So R.V. marg., with LXX., Targum, Syriac and Arabic versions,\n      Talmud, Rashi, Kimchi, and some Hebrew manuscripts (Bertheau, i. 1).\n      A.R.V., \u201chad understanding in the visions\u201d (R.V. vision) \u201cof God.\u201d\n      The difference between the two Hebrew readings is very slight. Vv.\n      5-20, with the exception of the bare fact of the leprosy are\n      peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  410 Cf. Ezek. xxvi. 9.\n\n  411 Pliny, vii. 56 _apud_ Smith\u2019s _Bible Dictionary_.\n\n  412 Num. xviii. 7; Exod. xxx. 7.\n\n  413 Kimchi interprets \u201cthose days\u201d as meaning \u201cafter the death of\n      Jotham.\u201d\n\n  414 The reference to the wall of Ophel is peculiar to Chronicles:\n      indeed, Ophel is only mentioned in Chronicles and Nehemiah; it was\n      the southern spur of Mount Moriah (Neh. iii. 26, 27). Vv. 3_b_-7 are\n      also peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  415 This is usually understood as Nisan, the first month of the\n      ecclesiastical year.\n\n  416 xxix. 3-xxxi. 21 (the cleansing of the Temple and accompanying\n      feast, Passover, organisation of the priests and Levites) are\n      substantially peculiar to Chronicles, though in a sense they expand\n      2 Kings xviii. 4-7, because they fulfil the commandments which\n      Jehovah commanded Moses.\n\n  417 Exod. vi. 18, 22; Num. iii. 30, mention Elizaphan as a descendant of\n      Kohath.\n\n  418 So Strack-Zockler, i. 1.\n\n  419 Lev. i. 6.\n\n  420 According to 2 Kings xviii. 10, Samaria was not taken till the sixth\n      year of Hezekiah\u2019s reign. It is not necessary for an expositor of\n      Chronicles to attempt to harmonise the two accounts.\n\n  421 Cf xxx. 11, 18.\n\n  422 xxx. 14; cf. 2 Kings xviii. 4. The chronicler omits the statement\n      that Hezekiah destroyed Moses\u2019s brazen serpent, which the people had\n      hitherto worshipped. His readers would not have understood how this\n      corrupt worship survived the reforms of pious kings and priests who\n      observed the law of Moses.\n\n  423 Cf. xxix. 34, xxx. 3.\n\n  424 Lev. xv. 31.\n\n  425 So Bertheau, i. 1, slightly paraphrasing.\n\n  426 A.R.V., with Masoretic text, \u201cthe priests the Levites\u201d; LXX., Vulg.\n      Syr., \u201cthe priests and the Levites.\u201d The former is more likely to be\n      correct. The verse is partly an echo of Deut. xxvi. 15, so that the\n      chronicler naturally uses the Deuteronomic phrase \u201cthe priests the\n      Levites\u201d; but he probably does so unconsciously, without intending\n      to make any special claim for the Levites: hence I have omitted the\n      word in the text.\n\n  427 xxxii. 2-8, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  428 xxxii. 30.\n\n  429 xxxiii. 11-19, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  430 So R.V.: A.V., \u201camong the thorns\u201d; R.V. marg., \u201cwith hooks\u201d, if so\n      in a figurative sense. Others take the word as a proper name: Hohim.\n\n  431 Ezek. xviii. 20.\n\n  432 Peter iv. 18.\n\n  433 Ezek. xviii. 21-23.\n\n  434 Psalm cxxx. 4, probably belonging to about the same period as\n      Chronicles.\n\n  435 1 Chron. xxiii. 26, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  436 2 Chron. vii. 5. The figures are peculiar to Chronicles; 1 Kings\n      viii. 5 says that the victims could not be counted.\n\n  437 Jehoiachin. The ordinary reading in 2 Kings xxiv. makes him\n      eighteen.\n\n  438 2 xxxvi. 6_b_, peculiar to Chronicles.\n\n  439 Mostly peculiar to Chronicles.","title":"The Expositor's Bible: The Books of Chronicles","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":127873}