Lectionary Calendar
Monday, May 20th, 2024
the Week of Proper 2 / Ordinary 7
We are taking food to Ukrainians still living near the front lines. You can help by getting your church involved.
Click to donate today!

Bible Commentaries
1 Chronicles

Peake's Commentary on the BiblePeake's Commentary

- 1 Chronicles

by Arthur Peake



Title.— The present title is due to Jerome, and well represents the Hebrew Dibre ha-jamî m, lit. “ Things of the days,” i.e. Annals. 1 and 2 Ch. were originally not divided; in the Hebrew Bible they form a single book. The division into two separate books comes from the LXX. We shall treat it here as one book. For the relationship between Ch. and Ezr.– Neh., all of which formed originally one large work, see Intr. to Ezr.– Neh.

Divisions.— There are four main, clearly-marked divisions, viz. (i.) The history from Adam to David, 1 Chronicles 1-9; (ii.) The history of David, 1 Chronicles 10-29; (iii.) The history of the reign of Solomon, 2 Chronicles 1-9; (iv.) The history of Judah from Rehoboam to the edict of Cyrus, 2 Chronicles 10-36. It is noticeable that the Chronicler devotes much more attention to the history of his people during the period prior to the division of the kingdom.

Place in the Canon.— In the EV the book follows immediately after 1 and 2 K., but in the Hebrew Bible it is placed at the end of the Hagiographa, and is thus the last book of all. That this was its original position is to be gathered from Christ’ s words in Matthew 23:35 *, Luke 11:51 ( cf. 2 Chronicles 24:20-22), where He is not referring to the limits of time, but to the limits of the Sacred Canon, from Gen. to Ch. (Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament [1892], p. 141).

Characteristics.— The most outstanding of these is to be seen in the purpose for which the book was written. The writer, or compiler, does not write as a historian, but with the object of interpreting history in the light of later developments; on the other hand, he desires to utilise past history for the practical purpose of placing the circumstances and conditions of his day in what he considers the right perspective; so that he has often to read the past in the light of the present, and to modify his version of the records accordingly. By this means he is able to place before his readers what he conceives to be historical authority for doctrines and practices which are near to his heart. It would be the greatest mistake to impute bad faith to the Chronicler on this account; if he altered, modified, or added to the sources before him in making his compilation, he did so from right motives and in obedience to fixed convictions. Two authorities existed to which he had recourse in undertaking this work for his people: the historical records of the past, and the Pentateuch together with the oral tradition inseparably connected with it. To the Chronicler there could be no sort of doubt as to which was the more authoritative; the Law was immeasurably more holy than the numerous and often faulty historical records of which 1 and 2 Samuel , 1 and 2 K. were examples; so that it was by the Divine Law that he felt himself bound to be guided. Now, in many respects, the historical records manifested not only divergence from, but direct contradiction to, the Law both in its written and oral form; they could not, therefore, both be right. Since it was unthinkable to the Chronicler that the Divine Law could be wrong he was obviously forced to regard the historical records as in error; he was, therefore, in duty bound to reconstruct these, in the compilation he was drawing up, in such a way as to bring them into harmony with the teaching of the Law. The Chronicler acted not only in good faith, but in a way to which there was no alternative; any other course would have been, to his mind, disloyal to the Law and a grave dereliction of duty to the people of the Law as the Jews of his day claimed to be. His main attention is, therefore, centered upon what he regarded as the highest things of the Law, namely, ritual and worship, the Temple, its building and furniture down to minute details, the celebration of the festivals, and, most important of all, the ministers and officers; and, regarding the latter, it is noticeable that he is chiefly interested in the Levites, much more so than in the priests; and among those things with which the Levites were specially concerned the Temple music has most attraction for him. Everything of a secular character which he finds in his sources is either passed over altogether or only cursorily referred to, and then with the manifest purpose of showing that the religious side of things is what is really important. One striking way whereby the Chronicler carries out his purpose is by means of developing a historical narrative into a Midrash ( 2 Chronicles 13:22 *), thus turning it into a didactic and edifying religious story. This midrashic element is very pronounced in our book, and it usually serves the purpose of glorifying either the Temple worship or something connected with it, or else the Levitical priesthood (See on Joshua 22:9-34.)

Other characteristics, but of less importance, are the writer’ s fondness for genealogies and statistics. There is also considerable exaggeration where numbers are concerned; not that the Chronicler has the slightest intention to deceive, it is simply the result of his tendency to idealise and magnify the past history of his nation.

Historical Value.— As a whole our book cannot be said to offer trustworthy history about the times of which it professes to tell, excepting where details are taken from the historical books and have not been coloured by the compiler. In some cases, however, it is possible that a narrative of Samuel or Kings may be supplemented by the Chronicler’ s account; e.g. 1 Chronicles 11:10-41 may have been taken from the same source as 2 Samuel 23:8-39 ( cf. Cornill, 10T, E. tr. p. 234); other examples are 2 Chronicles 11:18-23; 2 Chronicles 13:2; 2 Chronicles 13:21; 2 Chronicles 26:1-23; 2 Chronicles 27:1-7; 2 Chronicles 28:1-27; 2 Chronicles 32:1-23; 2 Chronicles 33:1-20. (On the subject of this and the two preceding paragraphs, see pp. 48f., 75– 77.)

Language.— The Heb. of Ch. is that of the last stage of the language of the OT; it lacks the easy flow and simple dignity of classical Hebrew, offering instead a style which is stiff and tedious, and cumbrous in expression. Many new words are used which approximate to Aramaic and adumbrate the vocabulary of the Mishna (pp. 35f.).

Date.— The language, as just pointed out, stamps Ch. as among the very latest books of the OT. The main indications as to date in the book itself are as follows: in 2 Chronicles 36:22 f. reference is made to the edict of Cyrus permitting the return of the Jews, so that at the earliest the book belongs to the Persian period; that it cannot, however, belong to the beginning of this period is clear from 1 Chronicles 29:7, where the daric is mentioned; the daric was introduced by Darius I. But the book must belong to a much later date than this, for in 1 Chronicles 3:17-24 (even if the RV in 2 Kings 25:21 represents the correct text) the genealogy from Zerubbabel is carried down to the sixth generation, which would give c. 350 B.C. as the earliest date of the book. But in 2 Kings 25:21 the reading of the LXX, Pesh., and Vulg., which in all probability represents the right one, brings the genealogy from Zerubbabel down to the eleventh generation; this means that the book cannot have been written until well into the Greek period. We shall probably not be far wrong in assigning the middle of the third century B.C. as the approximate date of our book. The religious standpoint of the writer (see above) accords with this estimate of the date.

Sources.— A considerable list can be made of the sources mentioned by the Chronicler which he utilised in making his compilation. They fall into two categories: (1) historical records, (2) prophetical writings. The former comprise a large work on the history of the kings cited under several names: “ The book of the kings of Israel” ( 1 Chronicles 9:1, 2 Chronicles 20:31. 2 Chronicles 33:18); “ The book of the kings of Judah and Israel” ( 2 Chronicles 16:11; 2 Chronicles 25:26; 2 Chronicles 28:26; 2 Chronicles 32:32); “ The book of the kings of Israel and Judah” ( 2 Chronicles 27:7; 2 Chronicles 35:27; 2 Chronicles 36:8), and “ The chronicles of king David” ( 1 Chronicles 27:24), which was probably a section of the same large work. In addition to this there is “ The commentary (midrash) of the book of the kings” ( 2 Chronicles 24:27). There were thus two historical sources, the large work and the midrash on it. The former was not our Book of Kings; this is clear from the fact that it contained matter which is not in the canonical Kings (see, e.g., 2 Chronicles 27:1-7; cf. 2 Kings 15:31-36, 2K. 33:18, 2K. 36:8); but it was a work of later date than the canonical Kings, because this latter used separate sources for the histories of the northern and southern kingdoms, whereas in the Chronicler’ s source the histories of both kingdoms are combined. The reason why the Chronicler did not use the canonical Kings, assuming that it was available for him, was that in the source which he utilised, both the ecclesiastical point of view and the method of handling the material were more in accordance with his own taste. The other historical source is the “ midrash of the book of the kings” ; many scholars believe that this is really the same as the source just referred to, because it is evident, judging from the Chronicler’ s excerpts, that the Book of the Kings was itself of a midrashic character; on the other hand, the fact that the Chronicler uses a distinct title in reference to it suggests that it was a different work. It is true that the Book of the Kings utilised by the Chronicler was of a midrashic character, but between this and a book which has the specific title of “ Midrash,” and which is therefore a Midrash and nothing else, there is a great difference. The balance of probability points to the two sources being different.

Of the other sources, prophetical writings, the names are: “ The history (lit. ‘ words’ and so below) of Samuel the seer, the history of Nathan the prophet, and the history of Gad the seer” ( 1 Chronicles 29:29); “ The history of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer” ( 2 Chronicles 12:15); “ The history of Jehu the son of Hanani, which is inserted in the book of the kings of Israel” ( 2 Chronicles 20:34); “ The acts of Uzziah,” written by Isaiah the prophet ( 2 Chronicles 26:22): “ The history of the seers” ( 2 Chronicles 33:19). While all these were, no doubt, originally independent works, they were most probably all incorporated into the large Book of the Kings, mentioned above, by the time of the Chronicler; this is specifically stated to have been so in the case of one ( 2 Chronicles 20:34). In addition we have “ The midrash of the prophet Iddo” ( 2 Chronicles 13:22), which seems to have been an independent work, and “ The vision of Isaiah the prophet in the books of the kings of Judah and Israel ( 2 Chronicles 32:32). The Chronicler does not, therefore, appear to have had any sources more authoritative than the canonical books known to us.

Literature. Commentaries: ( a) Elmslie (CB), Ball in Ellicott’ s Commentary, Bennett (Ex.B), Harvey-Jellie (Cent.B). ( b) Curtiss (ICC). ( c) Oettli, Bertheau (KEH), Kittel (SBOT) (HK), Benzinger (KHS). Other Literature: Introductions to OT., Robertson Smith, OTJC, 2 pp. 140– 148; articles in the Bible Dictionaries.



Bible History, “ Prophetical”— The OT contains books which may be termed historical, but although they are grouped together in our Bibles, this is not the case in the arrangement adopted by the Jews. The only book which they perhaps recognised as history, the Chronicles ( Dibhrê hayyâ mî m, “ words of years” ), is placed at the very end of the sacred volume, whilst the main portion of the books known to us as “ historical” is styled “ prophetical.” Thus the story of Israel is to the Jews in itself a prophecy (that is, a telling forth) of God’ s will and purpose to His people. In accordance with this ideal we find historical episodes interwoven, as in Isaiah and Jeremiah, with prophetic utterances. In judging the historical books, therefore, we must bear in mind that they do not conform to the standard demanded of modern historical writing. They are “ prophetical”— that is, written with a view to edify and instruct— and are not designed to be text-books replete with colourless if accurate historical information.

Main Features of Historical Writing in the Bible.— The Hebrews are remarkable for the interest taken in the past of their nation, and this is the more strange as the Jew does not seem by nature to be disposed towards historical composition. Between the close of the OT story and the dissolution of the Jewish nation in the days of Hadrian, the people passed through some of the most stirring crises in the tragedy of humanity, yet many of the most important are scarcely recorded. But for the renegade Josephus we should have had no particulars of the fall of Jerusalem before the army of Titus. Yet in the OT, though the interest is almost entirely religious, we have a fairly complete record of Israel’ s fortunes from the conquest of its inheritance in Palestine to the restoration of the Jewish polity by Nehemiah.

Variety.— Bible history is remarkable, among other things, for its variety. No book in its present form is arranged like the others. Judges is unmistakable as compared with Joshua; Samuel and Kings have little resemblance; whilst Ezra-Nehemiah belongs to an entirely different school of thought, and Esther is absolutely unique in the OT and even in the Apocrypha. The materials, moreover, of which many of the books are composed are of the most varied description. We have in Kings, to take but a single example, the framework of a chronological history arranged in regnal years, chronicles of the kingdoms, Temple records, biographies, intermingled with which are stories told with all the magic art of portraying scenes inherent in the Eastern raconteur. We find in other books an admixture of pious exhortation, legal formulae, genealogies, and the like. In short, it may be said of the OT books of history that each has its own variegated pattern, which reveals the individuality of its author or compiler.

Choice of Subjects.— In their choice of subjects the prophetical historians of the Hebrew nation display characteristic peculiarities. We are surprised alike at what they tell us and what they omit. They are in a sense the least, and in another the most, patriotic of historians. They dwell but little on the national glories. How briefly are the successes of Saul over the Philistines, or the victories of Omri or Jeroboam II, or even those of the pious kings of Judah, recorded! Their story is often rather that of the nation’ s failure to reach its ideal, and even of how it fell short of the standard attained by less favoured peoples. And yet we cannot read the historical books without feeling chat they are instinct with a love of country and filled with a sense of Yahweh’ s protecting power. But the seeker after historical information will often be disappointed at the lack of facts where he most desires them. No details are given as to how Joshua conquered Central Palestine and conducted the nation to Shechem, its ancient capital. We learn nothing about the arrival of the Philistines, those formidable enemies of Israel. Nothing except the bare fact is preserved of the conquest of Og and his seventy cities. We seek in vain for the cause of David’ s feebleness, which made the revolt of Absalom so formidable. On the other hand, we have abundant details about the feuds with the Shechemites of a person so comparatively unimportant as Abimelech, the son of Gideon, of David’ s flight and his escapes from Saul, etc. The historical books were, as has been asserted, written for edification rather than for information; and it is not always easy, at times it is even impossible, to make a connected narrative out of them. Much of the story as related by the biblical writers must be reconstructed by a process which can hardly receive a name more honourable than that of guesswork.

Chronology.— One of the most formidable difficulties which the student of OT history has to face is that of chronology. In the later parts of the historical and prophetical books we are on fairly sure ground, because the writers give us the date by the year of the reigning kings of Persia. Even in the Books of Kings though there are serious discrepancies in the periods assigned to the kings of Israel and Judah respectively, we are able to date an event within say, ten years or so. We are also assisted by the more accurate chronology of the Assyrians. But the earliest date in Israelite history is that of a defeat inflicted on Ahab and his allies, which is not alluded to in the Bible. This is 854 B.C. From it we can infer that David lived, roughly, about 1000 B.C., but beyond this all is uncertainty. According to 1 Kings 4:1, Solomon’ s Temple was erected 480 years after the Exodus; but, by adding together the periods of affliction and repose given in the Book of Judges, we get an even longer period. But we are told in Exodus 1:11 that the Israelites during their oppression built Pithom and Raamses in Egypt, presumably under the great Rameses II, whose long reign was in the thirteenth century B.C. Consequently the Exodus must have taken place not much earlier than 200 or 250 years before the building of the Temple. The fact is that the ancient Hebrews seem to have used the number 40 and its multiples to express a period of time with considerable vagueness, and we really cannot tell whether they are speaking literally when they mention periods of 40, 20, or 120 years. To give a date even approximately before David is, to say the least, hazardous. We know that Jaddua, the last high priest mentioned in the OT, was alive in 333 B.C., and that Ezra and Nehemiah were in Jerusalem about 432 B.C.; but as to when the Exodus took place, or Joshua conquered Palestine and the events related in the historical books strictly so called begin, we have only the faintest idea.

Survey of Period of Prophetic History.”— The Book of Joshua, with which the history of Israel opens, has now generally been recognised as an integral part of the Pentateuch or five books of the Law. It certainly possesses the same structural peculiarities. It begins, where Deuteronomy leaves off, when Israel is encamped in the plains of Moab. Moses is dead, and Joshua is recognised as his successor. To him God says: “ As I have been with Moses, so will I be with thee.” The conquest of W. Palestine by Joshua is related under two headings: (1) the reduction of the south— the fall of Jericho and Ai and the defeat of the five kings; (2) che victory over the northern king, Jabin of Hazor (but see Judges 4). Central Palestine, viz. Shechem, is assumed already to have fallen into Israelite hands. Only two tribes, Joseph and Judah, receive inheritances from Joshua, Gad and Reuben having already been allotted territory in E. Palestine by Moses. The remaining seven tribes cast lots for the territory which they are permitted to conquer. The different inheritances are given with an abundance of detail, characteristic of P. Joshua charges Israel, as Moses did before his death, and dies on his property at Timnath Serah.

Judges is professedly a continuation of Joshua, but it is very different in style, scope, and arrangement; whereas Joshua is closely akin to the legal books, Judges rather resembles the historical. It covers a much longer period, extending over twelve judgeships, and is arranged on a distinct plan. In each case Israel sins, God punishes by an invasion, the nation repents, and a deliverer is raised up. Two supplementary narratives close the book, to show the state of the country when there was no king. It may be that the Book of Ruth is a third supplement, to show the origin of the great royal house of David.

The next four books, Samuel and Kings, are called by the Greek translators Books of Kingdoms” (βασιλειῶ?ν ) . 1 S. opens with the story of Samuel’ s birth in the days of Eli, the priestly judge, and gives an account of the loss of the Ark and the utter degradation of Israel under the Philistine yoke. Samuel, the first of the prophets, is the leader in the great struggle, and is compelled by the people to set a king over the nation in the person of Saul, who does much for the emancipation of his people, but is rejected by God and falls in battle against the Philistines. The main part of the last half of 1 S. is chiefly occupied with the hairbreadth escapes and adventures of David, the real founder of the monarchy, who is described as the “ man after God’ s own heart.” More space is given to him than to any other person mentioned in the Bible, about half 1 S., all 2 S., and two chapters of 1 K. forming his biography. 1 Kings is divided between the reign of Solomon, with an elaborate account of the Temple and its dedication, and the story of the division of the kingdom till the death of Ahab. The second book carries the reader down through the later history of the divided monarchy, relating the fall of the northern, and concluding with a history of the southern kingdom, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Captivity, to the restoration of Jehoiachin to a certain degree of honour by the son of Nebuchadrezzar. The latter period has to be supplemented by the historical portions of Jeremiah and the allusions to contemporary events in Isaiah and Ezekiel.

Characteristics of Prophetical History.— The books we have already considered represent the standpoint of the prophets of Israel; and, as we have seen, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are known as the first four of the prophetical books. Generally speaking, the view they take of the nation is that it is the people of God, who are specially bound to act in accordance with their high calling, though as a rule they fail lamentably to attain the standard demanded of them. But in no case is Israel represented as having a law like that known in after days as the “ Law of Moses” ; or, if it had, the majority of the nation, priests and prophets included, were completely ignorant of its contents. The ritual practices of all the saints and heroes of Israel throughout these books are quite different from those prescribed in Lev. and Nu., and if there is any Law it is rather that of the earliest legal chapters in Ex. (20– 23).

Later Historical Writings.— Of the remaining historical books, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah (the two latter being often reckoned as one book) form a complete series. Chronicles is a sort of revised edition of all the earlier history, whilst the two other books continue the narrative. The object of the writer of Chronicles is to give the impression that the kings of Judah— for Israel is only incidentally mentioned— were scrupulous in carrying out the Pentateuchal Law as it appears in the Priest’ s Code. Thus David will allow only Levites to bear the Ark, and we read much of his care to provide for the ritual, and especially the music, of the sanctuary. Solomon, represented as a powerful though not always faithful monarch in the Book of Kings, here appears as a blameless ruler. When a king like Uzziah presumes to undertake priestly functions, he is smitten with disease. In short, the whole is permeated by a priestly conception of history entirely foreign to the Book of Kings. Chronicles takes us to the end of the Captivity, and closes with the decree of Cyrus commanding the Jews to return and rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. Ezra-Nehemiah, for the two books are really one, opens with this edict, relates how the altar was set up and the Temple commenced, and how the proceedings were hindered by the “ adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” ( i.e. the Samaritans). During the reign of two Persian kings nothing was done, but under Darius the work was resumed and completed about 516 B.C. Then there is a complete silence for nearly two generations, when, in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus (464– 424 B.C.), Ezra, a Jewish priest, was permitted to lead a company of exiles back to Jerusalem. A Jewish governor named Nehemiah was then appointed, and we are told how he and Ezra restored Jerusalem, and made the nation obey the Law of Moses. With these two great men the Bible history concludes about the year 432 B.C.

Extant Hebrew History the Fragment of a Lost Literature.— There is little doubt that the literature of ancient Israel was not confined to the OT as we now have it. On the contrary, the books bear evident traces of having been compressed into their present limits by the omission of facts which must have been recorded, and are almost necessary to a right understanding of what stands recorded. To take but a single example: the reign of Omri ( 1 Kings 16:29-34) is related with the utmost brevity, and many things are omitted which would have thrown light on the subsequent history, and cannot fail to have been known by the author. Nothing, for instance, in Kings would lead us to suppose that the king who defeated Tibni and built Samaria was so important that rulers of Israel, though belonging to the very dynasty which had supplanted his own, should call themselves “ sons of Omri.” 2 Kings 3 relates a rebellion of Moab against Israel, and we know from the Moabite Stone (p. 305) that Omri had oppressed Moab and probably imposed upon it the onerous conditions hinted at in this chapter. Further, the severe terms exacted by the Syrians in the days of Omri (1 Kings 20) imply a serious defeat of Israel, to which no allusion is made. Although it cannot be proved that these were recorded in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel, it is highly probable that this was the case, and that the writer of Kings deliberately hurried over this important reign in order to record events which seemed to him to be of greater interest or more to the edification of his readers.

But the historical writers in the OT openly confess the fact that there was a considerable literature to which their readers might have access. The Book of Jashar (Jos., 2 S.), the Chronicles of Israel and of Judah, alluded to in Kings, and the many works cited in the late Book of Chronicles, show that there was an extensive literature in existence even as late as 300 B.C. which has completely disappeared, and that we have only fragments from which to reconstruct the story of ancient Israel.

The External Sources of Hebrew History.— Besides the sources mentioned in the historical books we may mention the external sources which connect the history of the Hebrews with that of the world at large, in addition to those which criticism has indicated as the materials used by the writers and redactors of the historical books.

( a) One of the most serious objections to the antiquity of the Jewish people, which Josephus had to answer, was the silence of the Greek authors regarding them. He accounts for this by the fact that the ancestors of the Jews did not inhabit a maritime country and engaged little in trade, being occupied m living their own peculiarly religious life ( Apion. 12). Josephus appeals, however, to the Tyrian records for the building of Solomon’ s Temple, quoting Dius (ch. 17) and Menander of Ephesus (ch. 18). He also quotes the testimony of the Babylonian Berossus (ch. 19) to the story of Noah, and on the treatment of the Jews by Nebuchadrezzar, and he relates that a writer named Megasthenes alludes to the first destruction of Jerusalem. But Josephus is evidently able to give his readers very little testimony, external to the Scriptures, for the history of Israel.

( b) Nor was more light thrown upon the subject till recent years, when the secrets of the hieroglyphic and of the cuneiform characters were revealed. Direct allusions to the Israelites are few, and can be easily enumerated: ( a) The word Is-ra-e-ru, “ Israelite,” occurs on the stele of Merenptah (thirteenth century B.C.), describing Egyptian victories over Israel; ( b) Shishak (1 K.) relates his devastation of Palestine (tenth century B.C.); ( c) Ahab is mentioned in the Qarqara inscription as one of the kings allied against Assyria (864 B.C.); ( d) Jehu’ s name, as of a king paying tribute to Shalmaneser II, is found on the Black Obelisk (British Museum), 842 B.C.; ( e) Pekah and Hoshea (2 Kings 15) appear in an inscription, 737 B.C. and the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C.; ( f) Hezekiah’ s name appears on the Taylor Cylinder (British Museum), 701 B.C.; ( g) at an earlier date, probably in the ninth century B.C., we have on the Moabite stone Mesha’ s account of his rebellion against Israel ( 2 Kings 3:1).

( c) As in the case of the Pentateuch, the materials used by the writers other than those specified by them are mainly matters of conjecture, but they may be roughly enumerated as follows: Judges, like the Pentateuch, is probably made up of two early documents, J and E, which were thrown into their present form— subject, however, to revision— by a Deuteronomic editor, whilst portions were added by a reviser of the school of P. The Books of Samuel, like Judges, have been subject to Deuteronomic and post-exilic revisions; but in the life of Saul we have a combination of two works, one hostile and the other friendly to monarchical institutions. The compiler drew upon traditions of David, a life of Samuel, and a very ancient account of David’ s reign (2 Samuel 9-20). In 2 Samuel 1:18 the Book of Jashar ( cf. Joshua 10:12-14) is quoted. The author of Kings alludes to the chronicles of the kings of Israel and the chronicles of the kings of Judah, and he probably had before him independent narratives of Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, etc., as well as the records of the Temple at Jerusalem.

The Miraculous in Hebrew History.— The historian has a natural distrust of the miraculous when he meets with it in records, not because he cannot believe in its possibility— for experience has taught him to be very cautious in saying that any event could not have occurred— but because a natural love of the marvellous makes men credulous in accepting supernatural explanations of events. Moreover, it is undeniable that the Hebrew writers regarded the whole story of the nation as a far greater miracle than any apparent interference with the laws of nature, because in every event they thought they saw the hand of the Lord of the whole earth shaping and directing the destinies of Israel. Nevertheless the impartial reader is impressed more by the absence than by the superabundance of miracle in the story of a people so intimately connected with its God as Israel, in so ancient and confessedly so religious a record as that found in the historical Scriptures. When we divide the miraculous events into ( a) subjective wonders— i.e. visions, Divine messages, and the like, which may, at any rate, be accounted for by the state of mind of those who experienced them; ( b) signs which were an acknowledged medium of God’ s communication with Israel; and ( c) wonders interrupting the natural course of history. we have to acknowledge the comparative rarity of the last-named.

Taking 1 K. as an example, the presence of the miraculous under the above classification is :

In 1 Kings 1-11, which relates the accession of Solomon and his reign, only two miracles are recorded— Solomon’ s vision at Gibeon ( 1 Kings 3:5), and the cloud filling the Temple at its dedication ( 1 Kings 8:10). These may be classed under ( a) visions and ( b) signs respectively.

1 Kings 12-16, the account of the division of the kingdoms. No miracle appears except the signs which accompany the denunciation of the schism of Jeroboam in 1 Kings 13— i.e. the temporary drying up of the king’ s hand, the rending of the altar, and the punishment of the disobedient prophet. These all come into the category ( b), signs.

1 Kings 17 – 2 Kings 2. Even in the life of Elijah, a man with admittedly supernatural powers, miracle is rare. His being fed by ravens is perhaps a doubtful miracle (see Commentary). The multiplying of the widow’ s cruse, the raising of her son from the dead, and the destruction of the captains of fifty, come under class ( c) wonders; unless we include the descent of fire at Carmel on the sacrifice, which may be regarded as a sign ( b), or the prophet’ s ascension, which may also be explained as a vision ( a). Considering its momentous character and the great men who lived in it, in the period from David to Elijah miracles are conspicuous by their absence.

History as Compared with Prophecy.— Though, as we have seen, the supernatural as manifested in miracle is of comparatively rare occurrence in Hebrew history, it is assumed throughout that events are under the control of Yahweh, the God of Israel. This is, as a rule, revealed in history by the prophets. It is their function to declare the will of God and His immediate purpose, together with the punishment which will follow if it be disregarded. Rarely is the prophet made to disclose the remote future, as when the messenger to Jeroboam predicts the destruction of his altar by a king of Judah, “ Josiah by name.” As a rule the prophets in history play somewhat the same part as the chorus in a Greek play: they explain events as the tragedy of Israel progresses. It is not till a late period, almost at the close of the history of the northern kingdom, that we get the literary prophet supplementing the narrative, and that we are able to construct history from the fragments preserved in the utterances of the prophets. The literary prophets from the eighth century onward stand in much the same relation to the recorded history in the OT as do the Epistles of Paul towards the Acts of the Apostles. Both are documents contemporary with the events, but, as a rule, these abound in allusions, the meaning of which can only be conjectured. Amos and Hosea give a view of Israel’ s later history, and Isaiah of Judah’ s relations with Assyria, differing from the records in Kings; just as the Epistle to the Galatians gives a very different impression of the controversy between the Jewish and Gentile Christians from what could be gathered from the Acts. It is, however, necessary to exercise much discretion in the use of the prophets for historical purposes, as both the Hebrew text and the genuineness of many passages are subjects of considerable dispute.

How far does the OT Give us Strict History?— The Bible, it has been already suggested, can hardly be said to record history with the strict accuracy demanded of a modern work. As it is easy to see from the Pss., the prophets, the Apocryphal literature, and the NT, the religious interest in history practically ceased with David, and was mainly centred in the primitive story as told in Genesis and in the deliverance from Egypt and the wanderings in the wilderness. The record from Joshua to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans as it appears in the OT is a fragmentary story of Israel, gathered from a number of lost sources and told for the sake of showing how the nation fell short of the ideal designed for it, and of the punishments which ensued. The writers or compilers, living centuries after the event, are usually less interested in the accuracy of their narrative than in the moral they wished to point. Formerly what was called inspiration was deemed to be so bound up with the exact truth of the record as to stand or fall with it. Consequently the unbeliever made his main point of attack some disputable statement, which the faithful were in honour bound to defend. Now, however, it is generally recognised that no early record can be expected to give the exact circumstances, especially when much of it is demonstrably not contemporary with the events; and in a work like the historical section of the OT we look rather to the purpose of the author than the details in which it is discoverable. The former is, in the biblical narrative, sufficiently clear. The history is professedly a commentary on the dealing of Yahweh with His people, showing in what manner He bore with their backslidings, punished and delivered them. The books were never intended to supply an accurate and exhaustive chronicle of events for the modern historian. All that can be claimed for them is that they give an outline, often singularly dispassionate and impartial, of the fortunes which befell the nation of Israel.

Ads FreeProfile