الكتاب المقدس

Expositor's Bible Commentary 2 Chronicles 2:1 And Solomon determined to build an house for the name of the LORD, and an house for his kingdom. SOLOMON THE chronicler’s history of Solomon is constructed on the same principles as that of David, and for similar reasons. The builder of the first Temple commanded the grateful reverence of a community whose national and religious life centered in the second Temple. While the Davidic king became the symbol of the hope of Israel, the Jews could not forget that this symbol derived much of its significance from the widespread dominion and royal magnificence of Solomon. The chronicler, indeed, attributes great splendor to the court of David, and ascribes to him a lion’s share in the Temple itself. He provided his successor with treasure and materials and even the complete plans, so that on the principle, " Qui facit per alium, facit per se ," David might have been credited with the actual building. Solomon was almost in the position of a modern engineer who puts together a steamer that has been built in sections. But, with all these limitations, the clear and obvious fact remained that Solomon actually built and dedicated the Temple. Moreover, the memory of his wealth and grandeur kept a firm hold on the popular imagination; and these conspicuous blessings were received as certain tokens of the favor of Jehovah. Solomon’s fame, however, was threefold: he was not only the Divinely appointed builder of the Temple and, by the same Divine grace, the richest and most powerful king of Israel: he had also received from Jehovah the gift of "wisdom and knowledge." In his royal splendor and his sacred buildings he only differed in degree from other kings; but in his wisdom he stood alone, not only without equal, but almost without competitor. Herein he was under no obligation to his father, and the glory of Solomon could not be diminished by representing that he bad been anticipated by David. Hence the name of Solomon came to symbolize Hebrew learning and philosophy. In religious significance, however, Solomon cannot rank with David. The dynasty of Judah could have only one representative, and the founder and eponym of the royal house was the most important figure for the subsequent theology. The interest that later generations felt in Solomon lay apart from the main line of Jewish orthodoxy, and he is never mentioned by the prophets. Moreover, the darker aspects of Solomon’s reign made more impression upon succeeding generations than even David’s sins and misfortunes. Occasional lapses into vices and cruelty might be forgiven or even forgotten; but the systematic oppression of Solomon rankled for long generations in the hearts of the people, and the prophets always remembered his wanton idolatry. His memory was further discredited by the disasters which marked the close of his own reign and the beginning of Rehoboam’s. Centuries later these feelings still prevailed. The prophets who adopted the Mosaic law for the closing period of the monarchy exhort the king to take warning by Solomon, and to multiply neither horses, nor wives, nor gold and silver. { Deuteronomy 17:16-17 ; Cf. 2 Chronicles 1:14-17 and 1 Kings 11:3-8 } But as time went on Judah fell into growing poverty and distress, which came to a head in the Captivity and were renewed with the Restoration. The Jews were willing to forget Solomon’s faults in order that they might indulge in fond recollections of the material prosperity of his reign. Their experience of the culture of Babylon led them to feel greater interest and pride in his wisdom, and the figure of Solomon began to assume a mysterious grandeur, which has since become the nucleus for Jewish and Mohammedan legends. The chief monument of his fame in Jewish literature is the book of Proverbs, but his growing reputation is shown by the numerous Biblical and apocryphal works ascribed to him. His name was no doubt attached to Canticles because of a feature in his character which the chronicler ignores. His supposed authorship of Ecclesiastes and of the Wisdom of Solomon testifies to the fame of his wisdom, while the titles of the "Psalms of’ Solomon" and even of some canonical psalms credit him with spiritual feeling and poetic power. When the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach proposes to "praise famous men," it dwells upon Solomon’s temple and his wealth, and especially upon his wisdom; but it does not forget his failings. { Sir 47:12-21 } Josephus celebrates his glory at great length. The New Testament has comparatively few notices of Solomon; but these include references to his wisdom, { Matthew 12:42 } his splendor, { Matthew 6:29 } and his temple. { Acts 7:47 } The Koran, however, far surpasses the New Testament in its interest in Solomon; and his name and his seal play a leading part in Jewish and Arabian magic. The bulk of this literature is later than the chronicler, but the renewed interest in the glory of Solomon must have begun before his time. Perhaps, by connecting the building of the Temple as far as possible with David, the chronicler marks his sense of Solomon’s unworthiness. On the other hand, there were many reasons why he should welcome the aid of popular sentiment to enable him to include Solomon among the ideal Hebrew kings. After all, Solomon had built and dedicated the Temple; he was the "pious founder," and the beneficiaries of the foundation would wish to make the most of his piety. "Jehovah" had "magnified Solomon exceedingly in the sight of all Israel, and bestowed upon him such royal majesty as had not been on any king before him in Israel." { 1 Chronicles 29:25 } "King Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom; and all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart." { 2 Chronicles 9:22-23 } The chronicler would naturally wish to set forth the better side of Solomon’s character as an ideal of royal wisdom and splendor, devoted to the service of the sanctuary. Let us briefly compare Chronicles and Kings to see how he accomplished his purpose. The structure of the narrative in Kings rendered the task comparatively easy: it could be accomplished by removing the opening and closing sections and making a few minor changes in the intermediate portion. The opening section is the sequel to the conclusion of David’s reign; the chronicler omitted this conclusion, and therefore also its sequel. But the contents of this section were objectionable in themselves. Solomon’s admirers willingly forgot that his reign was inaugurated by the execution of Shimei, of his brother Adonijah, and of his father’s faithful minister Joab, and by the deposition of the high-priest Abiathar. The chronicler narrates with evident approval the strong measures of Ezra and Nehemiah against foreign marriages, and he is therefore not anxious to remind his readers that Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter. He does not, however, carry out his plan consistently. Elsewhere he wishes to emphasize the sanctity of the Ark and tells us that "Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the city of David unto the house that he had built for her, for he said, My wife shall not dwell in the house of David, king of Israel, because the places are holy whereunto the ark of the Lord hath come." { 2 Chronicles 8:11 } In Kings the history of Solomon closes with a long account of his numerous wives and concubines, his idolatry and consequent misfortunes. All this is omitted by the chronicler; but later on, with his usual inconsistency, he allows Nehemiah to point the moral of a tale he has left untold: "Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin by these things? Even him did strange women cause to sin." { Nehemiah 13:26 } In the intervening section he omits the famous judgment of Solomon, probably on account of the character of the women concerned, he introduces sundry changes which naturally follow from his belief that the Levitical law was then in force. His feeling for the dignity of the chosen people and their king comes out rather curiously in two minor alterations. Both authorities agree in telling us that Solomon had recourse to forced labor for his building operations; in fact, after the usual Eastern fashion from the Pyramids down to the Suez Canal, Solomon’s temple and palaces were built by the corvee. According to the oldest narrative, he "raised a levy out of all Israel." This suggests that forced labor was exacted from the Israelites themselves, and it would help to account for Jeroboam’s successful rebellion. The chronicler omits this statement as open to an interpretation derogatory to the dignity of the chosen people, and not only inserts a later explanation which he found in the book of Kings, but also another express statement that Solomon raised his levy of the "strangers that were in the land of Israel." { 2 Chronicles 2:2 ; 2 Chronicles 2:17-18 ; 2 Chronicles 8:7-10 } These statements may have been partly suggested by the existence of a class of Temple slaves called Solomon’s servants. The other instance relates to Solomon’s alliance with Hiram, king of Tyre. In the book of Kings we are told that "Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee." { 1 Kings 9:11-12 } There were indeed redeeming features connected with the transaction; the cities were not a very valuable possession for Hiram: "they pleased him not"; yet he "sent to the king six score talents of gold." However, it seemed incredible to the chronicler that the most powerful and wealthy of the kings of Israel should either cede or sell any portion of Jehovah’s inheritance. He emends the text of his authority so as to convert it into a causal reference to certain cities which Hiram had given to Solomon. { 2 Chronicles 8:1-2 . R.V} We will now reproduce the story of Solomon as given by the chronicler. Solomon was the youngest of four sons born to David at Jerusalem by Bathshua, the daughter of Ammiel. Besides these three brothers, he had at least six other eider brothers. As in the cases of Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and David himself, the birthright fell to a younger son. In the prophetic utterance which foretold his birth, he was designated to succeed to his father’s throne and to build the Temple. At the great assembly which closed his father’s reign he received instructions as to the plans and services of the Temple, { 1 Chronicles 28:9 } and was exhorted to discharge his duties faithfully. He was declared king according to the Divine choice, freely accepted by David and ratified by popular acclamation. At David’s death no one disputed his succession to the throne: "All Israel obeyed him; and all the princes and the mighty men and all the sons likewise of King David submitted themselves unto Solomon the king." { 1 Chronicles 29:23-24 } His first act after his accession was to sacrifice before the brazen altar of the ancient Tabernacle at Gideon. That night God appeared unto him "and said unto him, Ask what I shall give thee." Solomon chose wisdom and knowledge to qualify-him for the arduous task of government. Having thus "sought first the kingdom of God and His righteousness," all other things -" riches, wealth, and honor"-were added unto him. { 2 Chronicles 1:7-13 } He returned to Jerusalem, gathered a great array of chariots and horses by means of traffic with Egypt, and accumulated great wealth, so that silver, and gold, and cedars became abundant at Jerusalem. { 2 Chronicles 1:14-17 } He next proceeded with the building of the Temple, collected workmen, obtained timber from Lebanon and an artificer from Tyre. The Temple was duly erected and dedicated, the king taking the chief and most conspicuous part in all the proceedings. Special reference, however, is made to the presence of the priests and Levites at the dedication. On this occasion the ministry of the sanctuary was not confined to the course whose turn it was to officiate, but "all the priests that were present had sanctified themselves and did not keep their courses; also the Levites, which were the singers, all of them, even Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and their sons and their brethren, arrayed in fine linen, with cymbals, and psalteries, and harps, stood at the east end of the altar, and with them a hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets." Solomon’s dedication prayer concludes with special petitions for the priests, the saints, and the king: "Now therefore arise, O Jehovah Elohim, into Thy resting-place, Thou and the ark of Thy strength; let Thy priests, O Jehovah Elohim, be clothed with salvation, and let Thy saints rejoice in goodness. O Jehovah Elohim, turn not away the face of Thine anointed; remember the mercies of David Thy servant." When David sacrificed at the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite, the place had been indicated as the site of the future Temple by the descent of fire from heaven; and now, in token that the mercy shown to David should be continued to Solomon, the fire again fell from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of Jehovah "filled the house of Jehovah," as it had done earlier in the day, when the Ark was brought into the Temple. Solomon concluded the opening ceremonies by a great festival: for eight days the Feast of Tabernacles was observed according to the Levitical law, and seven days more were specially devoted to a dedication feast. Afterwards Jehovah appeared again to Solomon, as He had before at Gibeon, and told him that this prayer was accepted. Taking up the several petitions that the king had offered, He promised, "If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I send pestilence among My people; if My people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. Now Mine eyes shall be open, and Mine ears attent, unto the prayer that is made in this place." Thus Jehovah, in His gracious condescension, adopts Solomon’s own words to express His answer to the prayer. He allows Solomon to dictate the terms of the agreement, and merely appends His signature and seal. Besides the Temple, Solomon built palaces for himself and his wife, and fortified many cities, among the rest Hamath-zobah, formerly allied to David. He also organized the people for civil and military purposes. As far as the account of his reign is concerned, the Solomon of Chronicles appears as "the husband of one wife"; and that wife is the daughter of Pharaoh. A second, however, is mentioned later on as the mother of Rehoboam; she too was a "strange woman," an Ammonitess, Naamah by name. Meanwhile Solomon was careful to maintain all the sacrifices and festivals ordained in the Levitical law, and all the musical and other arrangements for the sanctuary commanded by David, the man of God. We read next of his commerce by sea and land, his great wealth and wisdom, and the romantic visit of the queen of Sheba. And so the story of Solomon closes with this picture of royal state, - "The wealth of Ormus and of Ind, Or where the gorgeous East with richest hand Showers on her kings barbaric pearl and gold." Wealth was combined with imperial power and Divine wisdom. Here, as in the case of Plato’s own pupils Dionysius and Dion of Syracuse, Plato’s dream came true; the prince was a philosopher, and the philosopher a prince. At first sight it seems as if this marriage of authority and wisdom had happier issue at Jerusalem than at Syracuse. Solomon’s history closes as brilliantly as David’s, and Solomon was subject to no Satanic possession and brought no pestilence upon Israel. But testimonials are chiefly significant in what they omit; and when we compare the conclusions of the histories of David and Solomon, we note suggestive differences. Solomon’s life does not close with any scene in which his people and his heir assemble to do him honor and to receive his last injunctions. There are no "last words" of the wise king; and it is not said of him that "he died in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honor." "Solomon slept with his fathers, and he was buried in the city of David his father; and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead" that is all. When the chronicler, the professed panegyrist of the house of David, brings his narrative of this great reign to so lame and impotent a conclusion, he really implies as severe a condemnation upon Solomon as the book of Kings does by its narrative of his sins. Thus the Solomon of Chronicles shows the same piety and devotion to the Temple and its ritual which were shown by his father. His prayer at the dedication of the Temple is parallel to similar utterances of David. Instead of being a general and a soldier, he is a scholar and a philosopher. He succeeded to the administrative abilities of his father; and his prayer displays a deep interest in the welfare of his subjects. His record-in Chronicles-is even more faultless than that of David. And yet the careful student with nothing but Chronicles, even without Ezra and Nehemiah, might somehow get the impression that the story of Solomon, like that of Cambuscan, had been "left half told." In addition to the points suggested by a comparison with the history of David, there is a certain abruptness about its conclusion. The last fact noted of Solomon, before the formal statistics about "the rest of his acts" and the years of his reign, is that horses were brought for him "out of Egypt and out of all lands." Elsewhere the chronicler’s use of his materials shows a feeling for dramatic effect. We should not have expected him to close the history of a great reign by a reference to the king’s trade in horses. { 1 Chronicles 9:28 } Perhaps we are apt to read into Chronicles what we know from the book of Kings; yet surely this abrupt conclusion would have raised a suspicion that there were omissions, that facts had been suppressed because they could not bear the light. Upon the splendid figure of the great king, with his wealth and wisdom, his piety and devotion, rests the vague shadow of unnamed sins and unrecorded misfortunes. A suggestion of unhallowed mystery attaches itself to the name of the builder of the Temple, and Solomon is already on the way to become the Master of the Genii and the chief of magicians. When we turn to consider the spiritual significance of this ideal picture of the history and character of Solomon, we are confronted by a difficulty that attends the exposition of any ideal history. An author’s ideal of kingship in the early stages of literature is usually as much one and indivisible as his ideal of priesthood, of the office of the prophet, and of the wicked king. His authorities may record different incidents in connection with each individual; but he emphasizes those which correspond with his ideal, or even anticipates the higher criticism by constructing incidents which seem required by the character and circumstances of his heroes. On the other hand, where the priest, or the prophet, or the king departs from the ideal, the incidents are minimized or passed over in silence. There will still be a certain variety because different individuals may present different elements of the ideal, and the chronicler does not insist on each of his good kings possessing all the characteristics of royal perfection. Still the tendency of the process is to make all the good kings alike. It would be monotonous to take each of them separately and deduce the lessons taught by their virtues, because the chronicler’s intention is that they shall all teach the same lessons by the same kind of behavior described from the same point of view. David has a unique position, and has to be taken by himself; but in considering the features that must be added to the picture of David in order to complete the picture of the good king, it is convenient to group Solomon with the reforming kings of Judah. We shall therefore defer for more consecutive treatment the chronicler’s account of their general characters and careers. Here we shall merely gather up the suggestions of the different narratives as to the chronicler’s ideal Hebrew king. The leading points have already been indicated from the chronicler’s history of David. The first and most indispensable feature is devotion to the temple at Jerusalem and the ritual of the Pentateuch. This has been abundantly illustrated from the account of Solomon. Taking the reforming kings in their order:- Asa removed the high places which were rivals of the Temple, renewed the altar of Jehovah, gathered the people together for a great sacrifice, and made munificent donations to the Temple treasury. { 2 Chronicles 15:18-19 } Similarly Jehoshaphat took away the high places, and sent out a commission to teach the Law. Joash repaired the Temple; { 2 Chronicles 24:1-14 } but, curiously enough, though Jehoram had restored the high places and Joash was acting under the direction of the high-priest Jehoiada, it is not stated that the high places were done away with. This is one of the chronicler’s rather numerous oversights. Perhaps, however, he expected that so obvious a reform would be taken for granted. Amaziah was careful to observe "the law in the book of Moses" that "the children should not die for the fathers," { 2 Chronicles 25:4 } but Amaziah soon turned away from following Jehovah. This is perhaps the reason why in his case also nothing is said about doing away with the high places. Hezekiah had a special opportunity of showing his devotion to the Temple and the Law. The Temple had been polluted and closed by Ahaz, and its services discontinued. Hezekiah purified the Temple, reinstated the priests and Levites, and renewed the services; he made arrangements for the payment of the Temple revenues according to the provisions of the Levitical law, and took away the high places. He also held a reopening festival and a passover with numerous sacrifices. Manasseh’s repentance is indicated by the restoration of the Temple ritual. { 2 Chronicles 33:16 } Josiah took away the high places, repaired the Temple, made the people enter into a covenant to observe the rediscovered Law, and, like Hezekiah, held a great Passover { 2 Chronicles 34:1-33 ; 2 Chronicles 35:1-27 } The reforming kings, like David and Solomon, are specially interested in the music of the Temple and in all the arrangements that have to do with the porters and doorkeepers and other classes of Levites. Their enthusiasm for the exclusive rights of the one Temple symbolizes their loyalty to the one God, Jehovah, and their hatred of idolatry. Zeal for Jehovah and His temple is still combined with uncompromising assertion of the royal supremacy in matters of religion. The king, and not the priest, is the highest spiritual authority in the nation. Solomon, Hezekiah, and Josiah control the arrangements for public worship as completely as Moses or David. Solomon receives Divine communications without the intervention of either priest or prophet; he himself offers the great dedication prayer, and when he makes an end of praying, fire comes down from heaven. Under Hezekiah the civil authorities decide when the passover shall be observed: "For the king had taken counsel, and his princes, and all the congregation in Jerusalem, to keep the passover in the second month." { 2 Chronicles 30:2 } The great reforms of Josiah are throughout initiated and controlled by the king. He himself goes up to the Temple and reads in the ears of the people all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of Jehovah. The chronicler still adheres to the primitive idea of the theocracy, according to which the chief, or judge, or king is the representative of Jehovah. The title to the crown rests throughout on the grace of God and the will of the people. In Judah, however, the principle of hereditary succession prevails throughout. Athaliah is not really an exception: she reigned as the widow of a Davidic king. The double election of David by Jehovah and by Israel carried with it the election of his dynasty. The permanent rule of the house of David was secured by the Divine promise to its founder. Yet the title is not allowed to rest on mere hereditary right. Divine choice and popular recognition are recorded in the case of Solomon and other kings. "All Israel came to Shechem to make Rehoboam king," and yet revolted from him when he refused to accept their conditions; but the obstinacy which caused the disruption "was brought about of God, that Jehovah might establish His word which He spake by the hand of Ahijah the Shilonite." Ahaziah, Joash, Uzziah, Josiah, Jehoahaz, were all set upon the throne by the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. { 2 Chronicles 22:1 , 2 Chronicles 23:1-15 , 2 Chronicles 26:1 , 2 Chronicles 33:25 , 2 Chronicles 36:1 } After Solomon the Divine appointment of kings is not expressly mentioned; Jehovah’s control over the tenure of the throne is chiefly shown by the removal of unworthy occupants. It is interesting to note that the chronicler does not hesitate to record that of the last three sovereigns of Judah two were appointed by foreign kings: Jehoiakim was the nominee of Pharaoh Neco, king of Egypt; and the last king of all, Zedekiah, was appointed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. In like manner, the Herods, the last rulers of the restored kingdom of Judah, were the nominees of the Roman emperors. Such nominations forcibly illustrate the degradations and ruin of the theocratic monarchy. But yet, according to the teaching of the prophets, Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar were tools in the hand of Jehovah: and their nomination was still an indirect Divine appointment. In the chronicler’s time, however, Judah was thoroughly accustomed to receive her governors from a Persian or Greek king; and Jewish readers would not be scandalized by a similar state of affairs in the closing years of the earlier kingdom. Thus the reforming kings illustrate the ideal kingship set forth in the history of David and Solomon: the royal authority originates in, and is controlled by, the will of God and the consent of the people: the king’s highest duty is the maintenance of the worship of Jehovah; but the king and people are supreme both in Church and state. The personal character of the good kings is also very similar to that of David and Solomon. Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah are men of spiritual feeling as well as careful observers of correct ritual. None of the good kings, with the exception of Joash and Josiah, are unsuccessful in war; and good reasons are given for the exceptions. They all display administrative ability by their buildings, the organization of the Temple services and the army, and the arrangements for the collection of the revenue, especially the dues of the priests and Levites. There is nothing, however, to indicate that the personal charm of David’s character was inherited by his descendants; but when biography is made merely a means of edification, it often loses those touches of nature which make the whole world kin, and are capable of exciting either admiration or disgust. The later narrative affords another illustration of the absence of any sentiment of humanity towards enemies. As in the case of David, the chronicler records the cruelty of a good king as if it were quite consistent with loyalty to Jehovah. Before he turned away from following Jehovah, Amaziah defeated the Edomites and smote ten thousand of them. Others were treated like some of the Malagasy martyrs: "And other ten thousand did the children of Judah carry away alive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they all were broken in pieces." { 1 Chronicles 25:11 } In this case, however, the chronicler is not simply reproducing Kings: he has taken the trouble to supplement his main authority from some other source, probably local tradition. His insertion of this verse is another testimony to the undying hatred of Israel for Edom. But in one respect the reforming kings are sharply distinguished from David and Solomon. The record of their lives is by no means blameless, and their sins are visited by condign chastisement. They all, with the single exception of Jotham, come to a bad end. Asa consulted physicians, and was punished by being allowed to die of a painful disease. { 2 Chronicles 16:12 } The last event of Jehoshaphat’s life was the ruin of the navy, which he had built in unholy alliance with Ahaziah, king of Israel, who did very wickedly. { 2 Chronicles 20:37 } Joash murdered the prophet Zechariah, the son of the high-priest Jehoiada; his great host was routed by a small company of Syrians, and Joash himself was assassinated by his servants. { 2 Chronicles 24:20-27 } Amaziah turned away from following Jehovah, and "brought the gods of the children of Self, and set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burned incense unto them." He was accordingly defeated by Joash, king of Israel, and assassinated by his own people. { 2 Chronicles 25:14-27 } Uzziah insisted on exercising the priestly function of burning incense to Jehovah, and so died a leper. { 2 Chronicles 26:16-23 } "Even Hezekiah rendered not again according to the benefit done unto him, for his heart was lifted up in the business of ambassadors of the princes of Babylon; therefore there was wrath upon him and upon Judah and Jerusalem. Notwithstanding Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of Jehovah came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah." But yet the last days of Hezekiah were clouded by the thought that he was leaving the punishment of his sin as a legacy to Judah and the house of David. { 2 Chronicles 32:25-33 } Josiah refused to heed the warning sent to him by God through the king of Egypt: "He hearkened not unto the words of Neco from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo"; and so Josiah died like Ahab: he was wounded by the archers, carried out of the battle in his chariot, and died at Jerusalem. { 2 Chronicles 35:20-27 } The melancholy record of the misfortunes of the good kings in their closing years is also found in the book of Kings. There too Asa in his old age was diseased in his feet, Jehoshaphat’s ships were wrecked, Joash and Amaziah were assassinated, Uzziah became a leper, Hezekiah was rebuked for his pride, and Josiah slain at Megiddo. But, except in the case of Hezekiah, the book of Kings says nothing about the sins which, according to Chronicles, occasioned these sufferings and catastrophes. The narrative in the book of Kings carries upon the face of it the lesson that piety is not usually rewarded with unbroken prosperity, and that a pious career does not necessarily ensure a happy deathbed. The significance of the chronicler’s additions will be considered elsewhere: what concerns us here is his departure from the principles he observed in dealing with the lives of David and Solomon. They also sinned and suffered; but the chronicler omits their sins and sufferings, especially in the case of Solomon. Why does he pursue an opposite course with other good kings and blacken their characters by perpetuating the memory of sins not mentioned in the book of Kings, instead of confining his record to the happier incidents of their career? Many considerations may have influenced him. The violent deaths of Joash, Amaziah, and Josiah could neither be ignored nor explained away. Hezekiah’s sin and repentance are closely parallel to David’s in the matter of the census. Although Asa’s disease, Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Israel, and Uzziah’s leprosy might easily have been omitted, yet, if some reformers must be allowed to remain imperfect, there was no imperative necessity to ignore the infirmities of the rest. The great advantage of the course pursued by the chronicler consisted in bringing out a clearly defined contrast between David and Solomon on the one hand and the reforming kings on the other. The piety of the latter is conformed to the chronicler’s ideal; but the glory and devotion of the former are enhanced by the crimes and humiliation of the best of their successors. Hezekiah, doubtless, is not more culpable than David, but David’s pride was the first of a series of events which terminated in the building of the Temple; while the uplifting of Hezekiah’s heart was a precursor of its destruction. Besides, Hezekiah ought to have profited by David’s experience. By developing this contrast, the chronicler renders the position of David and Solomon even more unique, illustrious, and full of religious significance.

And Solomon determined to build an house for the name of the Lord. 2 Chronicles 2:1-16 Solomon's predestined work J. Parker, D.D. Solomon was born to do this work. There is no need for the rose to say, "Now I am going to be beautiful and fragrant." There is no need for the nightingale to say, "Now I have fully made up my mind to be musical and tuneful, and to fill the air with richest expressions and melody." The flower was born to bloom, and to throw all its fragrance away in generous donation; the nightingale was made in every bone and feather of it for the sacred singing throat to sing to astonish the world with music. Solomon came into this work naturally, as it were by birth and education. ( J. Parker, D.D. ) And this house which I build is great: for great is our God above all gods. 2 Chronicles 2:5, 6 The house of God Bp. Fulford. 1. The worship of God, the creator and governor of the world, commenced with the creation of man; but in the patriarchal ages it partook not of that formal and settled character which it afterwards, by God's direction, assumed. Nor, as far as we can learn from ancient history, does it appear that there were ever any regular buildings erected as temples before the Jewish tabernacle was set up. Noah, and the other patriarchs, appear simply to have erected altars for their sacrifices, and these often only for immediate and temporary use; or to have planted groves, as Abraham did in Beersheba, "and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God." But when God had chosen a people to be called by His name, and had given them His law, and taught them to offer Him regular stated services, He further commanded that there should be a particular building set apart for the same. Now, the objects of all such buildings are twofold. They are to be built to the honour of Him who is to be worshipped therein, and they are to be used by those who are to meet there for the purpose of joining in that worship. 2. And this feeling which led Solomon to build "a great house because God was great above all gods" has had its proper influence in all ages and countries, and is based upon true and proper principles of religion, as well under the dispensation of the gospel as under that of law. History, no doubt, tells us that in the days of persecution the faithful were wont to meet for Divine worship amidst the tombs and burial.places of the dead, or in the secret eaves of the earth. But, when persecutions cease, and days of prosperity come round, when, as David says, they themselves begin to "dwell in houses of cedar," then surely it is "no longer meet that the ark of the covenant of the Lord should remain under curtains." When mansions of costly price, and embellished within and without with all the skill of experienced artists, grow up on every side — when the halls of justice, the palatial buildings of the money-changers, the marketplaces, and public works which denote and advance the worldly greatness and prosperity of our citizens, are multiplying around us, then too, surely, it is meet that the house which we build for the service of God should be great and, as nearly as we can make it, the chief glory of all; reminding us, by its beauty and magnificence, of the greatness of our God, who is above all gods. 3. It has been too much the custom, in the age in which we live, to endeavour in every way to serve God at as cheap a rate as possible, at the same time that men serve themselves willingly at the costliest sacrifice. While in your private lives luxury has been increasing, any expenditure in connection with the building of a church or the service of God is too often denounced, very much in the spirit of Judas, as a waste of that which might have been turned to better account in some other way. Now, for myself, I wish loudly to protest against such a system. 4. What use are we going to make of the house of God, now that we have built it? "If there is one thing more than another for which we have a perfect loathing," says an able lay member of the Church, "it is that most disgusting of all unrealities which attempts to make things external and earthly the substitute for what is internal and heavenly — which considers fine churches and complex services a sufficient compensation for general laxity of morals — the formalism of lip-worship an atonement for deadness of hearts and unrestrained luxurious living." All the outward acts of s religious life may be performed, where there is an established character, and yet every one of them be an offence to God. They hear sermons, join in a litany, join in Divine worship, come to the communion once a month — all like a decent garment: things outside, nothing within. God forbid that such should be our case: that we should allow any self-complacency on account of this house which God has permitted us to build for Him, or any admiration of the services to be offered therein, to blind us to the depths of our sad spiritual necessities, or make us indifferent about these necessities being supplied. And when we draw nigh to offer our own sacrifices, let us ever bear fresh in our stricken hearts the recollection of that One Great Sacrifice once offered up as a peace-offering for us all, and which alone gives any of us sinners the right of access to the throne of grace. ( Bp. Fulford. ) A great house J. Parker, D. D. "The house is great, for great is our God" — that is the reason. That is the key of all Christian life. Our conception of God controls everything. A little God means a little life, a little morality, a little service, a little petty, miserable effort altogether; but a great conception of God is a great life — great loving, great service for others. I do not fear about God in the Church. God is great. We have dismissed Him from our thought. We are agnostics without the courage of our convictions. We say "God"; but do we mean it in all its light and music and beauty and moral necessity? Is not the Word of God a mere convenience in speech? We must put it in. Is it the ruling thought, the dominating idea, the sovereign force? Christ never ignored God. Christ lifted up the Father, the God, the Sovereign, When you get a real conception of God you will preach well. There will be no fear of man before you. Do not sit back and say, "We cannot know Him." That is intellectually true; it is sympathetically false — we cannot know God intellectually. No man's eyes can accommodate the whole sky, but we know God lovingly, pityingly, healingly, forgivingly; we know Him intuitively. The sun rules all things. Haste thou, take heed of that, O man! It is the sun that tells them what coat to put on; the sun tells them what to eat; the sun cures and smites, and rebukes thy poor botanies and minor sciences, showing them that the Kew Gardens of one nation are the weeds of another. The sun tells you when to go out and when to hasten home again. And as that teaches you, so the great Teacher of the mind, the Spirit of God, will teach them, control them, guide them! We "live and move and have our being" in God. The house is great, for great is our conception of God. God is greater than our conception — we struggle towards Him, and our struggle is victory. A great God means a great morality: Shall I tell you of the knaves that are trying to carve morality for the people? They have schedules and stipulations and social arrangements and indications and manifold endeavour and effort after something that is to be millennial and glorious. If that is morality, we can make it, shape it, manufacture it, sell it, appreciate it, prize it, barter it, nail it to the wall like a wooden idol. Talk they of morals? Oh, Thou bleeding Lamb, true morality is love of Thee! If that were morality which I have just described in my own words, it would be worthy of its own little etymology — an attitude, a manner, a posture, a trick. Away! It is a soul, an inspiration, a flame, an incarnate holiness. "Mr. So-and-so is a good man, though he is not a Christian." No! he is not a good man. "My neighbour is an excellent man, though he does not believe anything about God." No! he is not an excellent man. There thou art in the little etymological morality, the manner, the attitude, the posture. All thou seest is silver, but the base metal is inside. To be silver-covered is not to be silver. He only is good who is the temple of God by consent, by honour, by daily worship, by continued trust in His name and service in His kingdom. A great God means a great service — not a little service written out on the paper as to what shall come first, and next, and last, but an enthusiasm that dares the sea, the wilderness, and the place of danger, the cannibal, the savage, the devil "Why, missionary, dost thou so go forth? Remain at home." "I cannot." "Why not?" "God is great; my service for Him must be great also." Your house exists for one thing — you must find out what that one thing is. You shut the window for some one, you keep up the house for some one. It is always an impulse. We must find the motive and governing thought. Only let that be worthy, and all the rest will come. "Oh, my Father, the message preached was poor and feeble, but Thy broken-down old servant could not do better." He says, "That was the best discourse thou didst ever deliver; it shall be made mightier than the others on which thou hast lavished thy poor vanity. It was the best thou couldst do, and weakness may be strength, poverty may be wealth." Oh, to do the best you can! that is to do a great thing in the esteem of God. And that mumbling, stumbling prayer of thine at the family altar — only God knows what that prayer cost. Can you tell me the meaning of the word "great"? I will ask my young friends to tell me what great means, and to illustrate it in some general way. I hear the answer already — the mountains are great, the sky is great, the sun is great! There is the great mountain, and here at its base is a little child picking spring's first daisy. Which is great? The child! And a man standing on the great mountain says, "That is greatness. What am I, a poor little creature compared with that great rock?" Why, that great rock is insignificant, and thou art majestic. Thou canst tunnel it, bore it, climb it — that is greatness, not magnitude. Get the right definition of greatness, and all your troubles will subside and all your love will fall into its right prospective, and you shall say the Lord reigneth. Now I will tell you where greatness is to be found. It is to be found in compassion. You said great mountain; I say great pity — "And his father saw him whilst he was yet a great way off, and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him." All the consolidated planets never totalled up to that greatness. And thou canst be great in that way. I will tell you what is great — great patience, patience that sits up all night and says, "He will be here in the morning; he has been mistaken as to distance, but he will be here in the morning" — a patience that looks at the midnight clock as if by chance, as if it did not mean to look, but simply got its tearful eye on that significant dial. Patience says, "The child will do well by and by. He is poor at his learning now, but he is going to be a good scholar in a year or two." Ay, that is greatness; not the rocky mountains of the Alpine heights — not these, but heights of patience, depths of love, rivers of tears. "The house is great, for great is our God." This house will be famous for the deliverance of great messages. This house has no small message to deliver. The messages delivered here will deal with great subjects, with God, and blood, and sin, and pardon, and holiness, and destiny — themes that cannot be discussed anywhere else. They would be out of place in the Lyceum, in the political hall, in the House of Parliament. I speak of this house not in its locality, but in its typical relations. This house must be unique in its messages. Men must hasten to God's house to hear God's Word which they can hear nowhere else in the same sense, degree, and quality. My brother ministers, you are not hardly driven for subjects; the Cross still stands. You need not look up a paper to see what is the question of the day. The question of the day is, "How can a man be forgiven, how can a broken heart be healed, how can the lost be brought home?" — that is the question of the day. This house will be great in its welcomes. There will be as it were a genius, a spirit at all the doors, saying, "Come and welcome; O every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters." Great welcomes will make the house warm — people love welcomes. Speak God's welcomes to human hearts, and men will bless thee and mothers say there never was such a man. And this house will be known as great for its great remedies — the house of God treats nothing superficially. There be those in the world who cry "Peace, peace!" where there is no peace. There be those who say, "There, that will do," when they have not touched the heart-sore, the devil-spot. The remedy declared here will be the old, old remedy of blood. And this house, though great, is not final. Nature hates all buildings. Nature hates everything that does not grow. We know Mother Nature is very gentle to a nettle, and gives a nettle room and says, "Let this nettle grow"; but Nature has already begun to take off your roof. Long before you have paid half of your £9,000 you will have a bill sent in for repairs. Nature will not let the place alone — she will take it down. Build thou in God, build thou the temple-life. Every man is the living temple of God that cannot be taken down — that is a house not made with hands. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) Sermons in stones G. F. Pentecost, D.D. So far as we are able to discover from archaeological research and the details in Scripture, it seems beyond controversy that the temple of Solomon was the most splendid and magnificent building the world has ever seen. There have been larger buildings, but no building represented in itself so much splendour. The gold and silver and precious stones, besides the marble and timber and workmanship, amounted to about £100,000,000 sterling, equal to the annual revenue of this kingdom. And so far as we know, with all this luxurious outlay, there was no one in the congregation of Jerusalem who raised the Judas cry: "To what purpose is this waste?" Solomon said, "The house which I build is great," and he gave as a reason, "because great is our God above all gods." What did this temple mean to Solomon? I. The temple was great to Solomon BECAUSE IT STOOD FOR THE VISIBLE SIGN OF GOD'S PRESENCE AMONG THE PEOPLE. God had forbidden the children of Israel to make any image representing Himself. Yet there is an underlying spirit of worship that is inherent in all of us, a longing for some objective thing upon which we can cast our eye. Out of that desire, which seems to be a very part of our nature, and not a result of superstition, has grown, by the misdirection of it, all idolatry. God manifested Himself early in the garden of Eden with a flame of fire. When He spake with Moses He appeared in a burning bush. It was an objective sign of His presence. Consider how natural it is to build such signs as these in the land. We have on the Embankment a great Parliament House, a magnificent building, one of the finest in the world. That Parliament House is the visible sign of the sovereignty of the people. In the same way Buckingham Palace stands as the visible sign of royalty. The Courts of Justice in the Strand are a visible sign of the rights of man and the defence of man in his rights. So we might go all through the land and note that the great manor houses and castles are the embodiment of that subtle thing which we call nobility. Everything in this world has its concrete sign. We look upon the things that are seen, not as being the actual thing, but as the sign of the thing. II. When Solomon said, "The house I build is great," THE INADEQUACY OF HIS ABILITY TO EXPRESS HIS IDEA WAS ALSO PRESENT WITH HIM. How shall I build a house great enough for the great God? The only justification of the Infinite falling short of any house is that it shall be a place where we shall come into His presence and offer sacrifices to His great name. That purpose sanctifies the inadequate efforts we make to embody our ideal. God does not receive thanks from us because they are worthy of acceptance, but because they are responses to His grace. Little things become big, and sometimes great things become very small, just as their attitude is towards God. Bethlehem, for instance, was the least of all the cities, and yet it became great because it was sanctified and glorified by the birth of the Son of God. It was not the town, but what was associated with it. Nazareth was a despised, contemptible, mean little village; so contemptible that it came to be a byword, and yet Nazareth is one of the famous towns in the history of the world, and always will be. The things we offer to God are great, not because of the money they cost, not by the splendour of them that may meet the eye, but because they are given to God. God makes them great. III. The temple was great BECAUSE OF WHAT IT SYMBOLISED. It was the great type of the Incarnation. There is instinctively in man a spirit which craves for an objective representation of God. But for us Christ is the real Incarnation. Our churches stand as an embodiment of our thankful recognition of promises fulfilled. We meet for instruction, for prayer, for praise, for fellowship and goodwill, and to give forth our witness to God. It would be an irreparable loss to us if Westminster Abbey were rased to the ground; and so with all the old cathedrals of England. They are an embodiment of doctrine in a sense. A true cathedral is laid out on the plan of the Cross, the nave and the transepts making a cross. The spire tells of the aspirations of worship, and if we come into the choir we have an expression of praise. The old mediaeval idea was to work out in stone and in building the foundations of our faith. I would fill the land with buildings that should be in the highest sense great buildings, expressing the great inheritance which has come to us from God by Jesus Christ. ( G. F. Pentecost, D.D. ) Solomon's conception of God C.F. Keil. By the sentence, the heaven and heaven of heavens, that is the heaven in its most extended compass, cannot contain God, Solomon strikes down all rationalistic assertions that the Israelites imagined Jehovah to be only a finite national God. The infinitude and super-mundane exaltation of God cannot be more clearly and strongly expressed than it is in these words. That, however, Solomon was addicted to no abstract idealism is sufficiently apparent from this, that he unites this consciousness of the infinite exaltation of God with the firm belief of His real presence in the temple. The true God is not merely exalted above the world, has not only His throne in heaven ( 1 Kings 8:34, 36, 39 ; Psalm 2:4 ; Psalm 11:4 ; Psalm 103:19 ; Isaiah 66:1 ; Amos 9:6 ), He is also present on the earth ( Deuteronomy 4:39 ), has chosen the temple for the dwelling-place of His name in Israel, from which He hears the prayers of His people. ( C.F. Keil. ) Send me now therefore a man cunning to work in gold. 2 Chronicles 2:7-16 Huram and Solomon J. Wolfendale. Learn from this intercourse — I. THAT FRIENDSHIP IN LIFE IS HELPFUL. II. THAT CO-OPERATION AMONG MEN IS DESIRABLE. III. THAT MEN MAY KNOW GOD, YET NOT SERVE HIM. IV. THAT WHEN GOD'S PEOPLE ARE CONSISTENT IN THEIR LIFE, THEIR INFLUENCE UPON OTHERS IS FOR GOOD. ( J. Wolfendale. ) Co-operation J. Parker, D.D. No temple should be built by any one man. Blessed be God, everything that is worth doing is done by co-operation, by acknowledged reciprocity of labour. Your breakfast-table was not spread by yourself, although it could not have been spread without you. Sometimes we may almost bless God that we cannot identify the authorship of some books in the Bible. It is better that many hands should have written the book than that some brilliant author should have retired into immortality on the ground of his being the only genius that could have written so marvellous a volume. ( J. Parker, D.D. ) And Solomon numbered all the strangers that were in the land of Israel. 2 Chronicles 2:17, 18 Naturalisation of foreigners Bibical Museum. I. A GOOD GOVERNMENT WILL TEND TO MAKE A COUNTRY ATTRACTIVE TO FOREIGNERS. II. FOREIGNERS THUS ATTRACTED ARE AMENABLE TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE. III. THUS PROTECTED, THEY MAY CONTRIBUTE MATERIALLY TO THE ENRICHMENT OF A STATE BY THE IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN INDUSTRIES. Silk-weavers of Spitalfields. V. BE KIND TO STRANGERS. ( Bibical Museum. ) Strangers in the city T. De Witt Talmage. I. STRANGERS IN A CITY ARE IN DANGER FROM THE TEMPTATION TO EXPLORE THE UNDERGROUND LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY. I believe that three-fourths of the young men of our cities are ruined for the simple reason that they went to look at iniquity. In 1794, during the Reign of Terror in Paris, there were people who, to hide from their persecutors, got into the sewers under the city, and went on mile after mile amid the stifling atmosphere, poisoned and exhausted, coming out after a while at the river Seine, where they washed and breathed again the pure air. But, alas! that so many men who attempt to explore underground New York life never come to a river Seine, where they can wash, and they die horribly in the sewers. I stand on a mountain of Colorado, six thousand feet high. There is a man standing beneath me who says, "I see a peculiar shelving to this rock," and he bends towards it. I say, "Stop, you will fall." He says, "No danger; I have a steady hand and foot, and see a peculiar kind of moss." I say, "Stand back"; but he says, "I am not afraid"; and he bends farther and farther, and after a while his head whirls and his feet slip — and the eagles know not that it is the macerated flesh of a man they are picking at, but it is. So I have seen men come to the very verge of the life of this city, and they look away down in it. They say, "Don't be cowardly. Let us go down." They look farther and farther. I warn them to stand back; but Satan comes behind them, and while they are swinging over the verge, pushes them off. People say they were naturally bad. They were not? They were engaged in exploration. No man can afford to sail so near the coast of eternal fire for the purpose of discovering how hot it is. Stand off from that exploration. If you are a good swimmer, and you see a man drowning, leap for him and bring him ashore; but if you are merely going to jump in to see him drown, stand back. II. STRANGERS IN A CITY ARE IN DANGER FROM THE TEMPTATION TO DESECRATE THE SABBATH. There is not one in ten who knows how to keep the Lord's day when he is away from home and absent from all Christian influences. III. STRANGERS IN A CITY ARE NOT SAFE WITHOUT CHRISTIAN RESTRAINT. ( T. De Witt Talmage. ).

2:1-18 Solomon's message to Huram respecting the temple, His treaty with Huram. - Solomon informs Huram of the particular services to be performed in the temple. The mysteries of the true religion, unlike those of the Gentile superstitions, sought not concealment. Solomon endeavoured to possess Huram with great and high thoughts of the God of Israel. We should not be afraid or ashamed to embrace every opportunity to speak of God, and to impress others with a deep sense of the importance of his favour and service. Now that the people of Israel kept close to the law and worship of God, the neighbouring nations were willing to be taught by them in the true religion, as the Israelites had been willing in the days of their apostacy, to be infected with the idolatries and superstitions of their neighbours. A wise and pious king is an evidence of the Lord's special love for his people. How great then was God's love to his believing people, in giving his only-begotten Son to be their Prince and their Saviour.