... not reign in Jerusalem.” The form of the Hebrew text might be the result of a scribal error but might also be an indication that Jerusalem, which once was the seat of the proud Davidic monarchy, now has become the seat of its final destruction. 36:5–8 More information about King Jehoiakim is also provided in various sections of the book of Jeremiah (e.g., Jer. 25:1–3; 36:1–2, 9; 45:1–2; 46:1–2). This prophet was a contemporary of the king, and he prophesied in Judah in the final years before the ...
... not reign in Jerusalem.” The form of the Hebrew text might be the result of a scribal error but might also be an indication that Jerusalem, which once was the seat of the proud Davidic monarchy, now has become the seat of its final destruction. 36:5–8 More information about King Jehoiakim is also provided in various sections of the book of Jeremiah (e.g., Jer. 25:1–3; 36:1–2, 9; 45:1–2; 46:1–2). This prophet was a contemporary of the king, and he prophesied in Judah in the final years before the ...
... not reign in Jerusalem.” The form of the Hebrew text might be the result of a scribal error but might also be an indication that Jerusalem, which once was the seat of the proud Davidic monarchy, now has become the seat of its final destruction. 36:5–8 More information about King Jehoiakim is also provided in various sections of the book of Jeremiah (e.g., Jer. 25:1–3; 36:1–2, 9; 45:1–2; 46:1–2). This prophet was a contemporary of the king, and he prophesied in Judah in the final years before the ...
... not reign in Jerusalem.” The form of the Hebrew text might be the result of a scribal error but might also be an indication that Jerusalem, which once was the seat of the proud Davidic monarchy, now has become the seat of its final destruction. 36:5–8 More information about King Jehoiakim is also provided in various sections of the book of Jeremiah (e.g., Jer. 25:1–3; 36:1–2, 9; 45:1–2; 46:1–2). This prophet was a contemporary of the king, and he prophesied in Judah in the final years before the ...
... order to extend it over the whole land so that it could happen as the LORD has promised. One could say that this verse summarizes in a nutshell all the important themes that the Chronicler wanted to advance in his work. In the next verses (11:11–14) the information was taken over from the source text with minor changes to the numbers as well as the omission of the name of one of David’s heroes (see Additional Note on 11:10–14). With the change of location in 11:15 another group of three of the thirty ...
... order to extend it over the whole land so that it could happen as the LORD has promised. One could say that this verse summarizes in a nutshell all the important themes that the Chronicler wanted to advance in his work. In the next verses (11:11–14) the information was taken over from the source text with minor changes to the numbers as well as the omission of the name of one of David’s heroes (see Additional Note on 11:10–14). With the change of location in 11:15 another group of three of the thirty ...
... order to extend it over the whole land so that it could happen as the LORD has promised. One could say that this verse summarizes in a nutshell all the important themes that the Chronicler wanted to advance in his work. In the next verses (11:11–14) the information was taken over from the source text with minor changes to the numbers as well as the omission of the name of one of David’s heroes (see Additional Note on 11:10–14). With the change of location in 11:15 another group of three of the thirty ...
... order to extend it over the whole land so that it could happen as the LORD has promised. One could say that this verse summarizes in a nutshell all the important themes that the Chronicler wanted to advance in his work. In the next verses (11:11–14) the information was taken over from the source text with minor changes to the numbers as well as the omission of the name of one of David’s heroes (see Additional Note on 11:10–14). With the change of location in 11:15 another group of three of the thirty ...
... order to extend it over the whole land so that it could happen as the LORD has promised. One could say that this verse summarizes in a nutshell all the important themes that the Chronicler wanted to advance in his work. In the next verses (11:11–14) the information was taken over from the source text with minor changes to the numbers as well as the omission of the name of one of David’s heroes (see Additional Note on 11:10–14). With the change of location in 11:15 another group of three of the thirty ...
... Chronicler makes clear that Solomon’s reign is closely related to God’s presence (see the expression “God was with him,” which is not in 1 Kgs. 2). From 2 Chronicles 1:2 onward the relationship to 1 Kings 3 is clear, although the Chronicler added some information about whom the king commanded to go with him to Gibeon. This stands in contrast to the version in 1 Kings 3, which indicates that the king went to Gibeon alone. The last few verses, in which the wealth of Solomon is indicated (2 Chron. 1:14 ...
... some sexual overtones to the dancing and celebration. It is not surprising, then, that the Chronicler, wanting to present an unblemished portrayal of David, omitted that part of the source text. However, one would therefore have expected the Chronicler also to eliminate the information in 1 Chronicles 15:29. That this was taken over from the source text is not in line with the trend seen elsewhere in the Chronicler’s work. First Chronicles 16:1–3 (using 2 Sam. 6:17–19a) now concludes the procession ...
... high places. This shows the Chronicler’s deep disdain for King Ahaz. 28:5a and 28:23 The Chronicler ignores the alliance of Aram-Damascus and Israel and the so-called Syro-Ephraimite war against Judah (2 Kgs. 16:5). Instead, he splits the information, presenting, first, Ahaz’s defeat by the Arameans (the LORD his God handed him over to the king of Aram. The Arameans . . . took many of his people as prisoners . . . to Damascus; 28:5a). Then follows a description of a similar defeat by Israel (he ...
... our ideas of moral propriety. We must hear what the text says on its own terms, even if it presents theological difficulties or moral dilemmas that would easily be resolved if we made a few adjustments here and there. The text must inform our theology rather than our theology inform the text. This passage has given rise to many interpretations that start from everywhere but the text. The truth is that Jephthah was a master manipulator and a “big mouth” who did not always use the best judgment in how he ...
... work of God in the cross of Jesus Christ. Perhaps the best way to render this important verse is as follows: “For I am conscious of nothing against myself, but in this I am not made right with God—the one judging me is the Lord.” Paul informs the Corinthians that he was accountable to the Lord for his faithfulness to the gospel. His point is clear, although as interpreters recognize, the identity of the Lord is not immediately apparent. Paul mentioned God in 4:1 and refers to God explicitly in 4:5, so ...
... familiar with). It is difficult to know whether the further description of the decorations refers to the portico or to the temple as a whole. It is also difficult to know which sections in 1 Kings 6 served as source text for this part, since the information was altered and abbreviated somewhat randomly. What is clear, however, is that gold played a very important role in the temple decorations. 3:8–14 These verses, which can be associated with a source text in 1 Kings 6:16–28, deal with the construction ...
... evaluation of the new king (27:1–2), followed by a description of his building projects (27:3–4) and his military campaign against the Ammonites (27:5); 27:6 provides a summary of his reign, before 27:7–9 concludes the narrative with the usual summary information. 27:1–2 As usual, the Chronicler omits the coordinated dating of the kings of Judah and Israel (as in 2 Kgs. 15:32) but copies the biographical details about King Jotham from 2 Kings 15:33. The positive evaluation of the king is also taken ...
... in the opposite order. This inversion probably sought to indicate that the temple vessels were not harmed, which might be the conclusion from the source texts, where the destruction comes first. 36:20 The first part of 36:20 might still be a summary of the information provided in 2 Kings 24:11–12, 18–21 and Jeremiah 39:9–10; 52:15–16, 24–30. No individuals or groups are mentioned in 2 Chronicles 36:20, but those taken into captivity are collectively called the remnant, who escaped from the sword ...
... from antiquity. The author urges its recipient to come posthaste (v. 9); indicates why he wants him to come (he is alone, vv. 10–11a), who and what to bring (vv. 11b–13), and whom to watch out for along the way (vv. 14–15); and concludes with information as to how things have been going with him (vv. 16–18). On its own all of this is so ordinary as to elicit no surprise from anyone. It would be one more among thousands of letters of its kind from the Hellenistic world. The element of surprise ...
... gave Gilead to Makir. Makir is there called a son of Manasseh. Jair, who is presented as a grandson of Hezron here, is also mentioned in Numbers 32:39–41, also as a son of Manasseh. Since we do not have any other parallel for the information in the Chronicler’s genealogy, I suggest that the Chronicler made creative use of this earlier tradition of Makir and Jair to establish a link between the lineage of the Judahites and Manasseh and also to voice Judah’s territorial claim on (parts of) Gilead in ...
... understand. God keeps our tears to remind himself of the misery we have endured in life (see also Isa. 49:16). Isaiah’s vision of the day of salvation when God wipes our tears away (Isa. 25:8; cf. Rev. 7:17; 21:4) is another metaphor that informs us that our misery that God has remembered will be obliterated. In light of his confident faith, David can ask rhetorically “What can man do to me?” because he knows God is for him (56:9). This declaration of God’s favor is essentially equivalent to Paul ...
... at the home of a well-to-do person whose dining room and atrium were both used for the supper. Groups arrived and stayed as they were able, with the better-off members having more leisure than the lower social classes. In the extended and informal atmosphere of such a gathering, the purpose of the meeting could be lost and the convocation could devolve into a mere social occasion with one group or another having little to do with the rest of the assembly. As Talbert concludes, “The problem in Corinth ...
... to the point when the return from exile started. Apart from 1 Chronicles 3:17–24, the present subsection is the only one taking the Chronicler’s story chronologically into the postexilic era. Could it be that the Chronicler actually wished the information included in this subsection to form the context within which his whole construction was to be understood? If so, this would be a powerful literary tool that lets the reader understand that the following retelling of Israel’s history is actually done ...
... returning to Jerusalem once they had finished. The Chronicler abbreviates this description in 1 Chronicles 21:4 by stating that Joab left and went throughout Israel and then came back to Jerusalem. The text in 2 Samuel additionally indicates how long the census took, information that is also omitted in Chronicles. It should be noted that the whole of the area described in 2 Samuel 24 is indicated by the Chronicler to be kol-yisraʾel (all Israel). This term, which occurs so frequently in the Chronicler’s ...
... . Since the earth was corrupt (vv. 11, 12), made corrupt by humans sinning (v. 12), God would destroy (lit. “cause corruption,” v. 13) both the humans and the earth. The repetition of this root stresses that God was acting justly in bringing judgment. 6:13–22 God informed Noah of the imminent deluge and instructed him to build an ark (tebah) in order that he and his household might survive. The text does not mention the time it took Noah to build the ark. God spoke to Noah three times (see also 7:1; 8 ...
... s demise (vv. 17–20)? The answer may lie partly in the contrast between the two kings in their deaths. Jehoash came to a natural and peaceful end; Amaziah met a violent death, the victim (like his father) of a conspiracy. The effect of placing the information about the two together is to emphasize this difference and to suggest that there is a connection between their fates and their roles in the war of 14:8ff. The innocent party dies in peace; the aggressor, acting as Rehoboam had been forbidden to act ...