The Pulpit Commentary — 2 Chronicles — Section 21

/ellingmther tlmn to e.ny eubeequcntdreesing 22, it has been so.id that the consumption or e.nd suwing up of the timber. It is, there- the royal household of Bowman was abnve f'oro, rather more e. point of interest to lee.rn 32,000 measures. The cor, or homn, was the in what tho gree.t skill consisted which so largest of the five dry measures of capacity threw Isrnelites into the she.de, while dis- being equal to 180 cabs, 100 om,ers, 30 seahs: tinguishing Hirnm's serve.nts. It is, of 10 ephahs (see Dr. Smith's ' Bible Dic- course, quite possible the.t the "hewing," or tionary,' iii. 1741), though what was the "felling," mo.y be to.ken to infer o.ll the sub- exact valne of any one of these in modern sequent cutting, dressing, eto. Perho.ps the measures has only been uncertainly and very skill intended will have included the best approximately arrived at. Baths. The bath selection of trees, 611 well as the neatest and was the h\rgest ofthe three liquid measures of quickest laying of them prostro.te, and if co.po.city, being equal to 6 hins and 72 wgs beyond this it included the sawing e.nd (see same' Dictionary,' iii. 1740). dressing and shaping of the wood, the room Ver. 11.-Hura.m . . . answered in writ- for superiority of skill would be ample. My ing. It is impossible to argue witll any but servants (so vers. 2, 18; 1 Kings v. 15). superficial plausibility that Solomon had Ver. 10.-Beaten wheat. In 1 Kings v. not used writing. In the parallel of Kin"'• 11 the languo.ge is" wheat/or food" (n~~l?), an identical expression is used for the co~- while the Septue.gint gives tta.l µa.x•lp. In munications of both : " Solomon sent to our present passage the Septuagint giYes •l• Hiram" (ver. 2), and" Hiram sent to Solo- {Jpd,µa.Ta., suggesting at once the.tour Hebrew mon" (ver. 8). The productions of the ni:.io is an error for n~:aio. The former He- forms of this correspondence by Josephus bre~ word is that co~stantly employed for (' Ant. Jud.,' viii. 2) and Eupolemus (' Ap. "plo.gues," "strokes," etc., and it is nowhere Priep. Eva.ng.,' ix. 33) are, of course, merely but in this place rendered "beaten." I will mythical. Beoause the Lord hath loved his give to thy servants. This passe.ge is hard people. This beautiful expression has paral- to reconcile with whe.t is said in 1 Kings v. lels, not only in such passages as eh. ix. 8 • 11; but meantime it is not certain that it 1 Kings x. 9 ; but in such a.a Deut. vii. 13: needs to be reconciled with it. It is possible x. 15; Ps. xlvii. 4; cxv. 12; Jer. mi. 3 '. that the two passages are distinct. The con- Hos. xi. 1, 4. These were all precursors of tents of the present verse, at a.II events, need the fuller assertion and kinder demonstra- not be credited with any ambiguity, unless, tion of God's love repeated so often and in indeed, we would wish it more definite, such tender connections in the Epistles of whether the expression, " I will give to thy the New Testament. This verse and the servants," may uot be quite as correctly un- following are also testimony to the indirect deriitood, "for thy servants," i.e. to thee as influences on surrounding nations ot' the the hire of them. If this be so, it would knowledge of the one true Creator-God and enable us to give at once all the wheat, and Ruler-':}od, that was domiciled by special two hundred out of the 20,000 baths of oil, revelation and oracle (Rom. iii. 2) with Is- for the consumption, not of the literal work- rael. Where nations near were hitter foes men, but of the royal household. Then this they often feared L!ra.el's God, whereas no; granted, the verse, though not identical with they were friends they could summon to 1 Kings v. 11, is brought into harmony with their lips the highest of the outbursts of it. Reverting to the statement in 1 Kings praise, not to say of adoration. T~e very v., what we learn is that Solomon, in his noteworthy sympathy of Hiram with Israel application to Hiram, offers payment for the may have owed something to hfa personal hire of his servants such as he shall appoint predilection for David (1 Kings v. 1). And (ver. 6). Hiram's reply is that he sho.11 this again is convincing testimony to the be satisfied to receive as payment "food worth and usefulness of indiviJu11l character for his household" (ver. 9), the amount of which here influenced the destiny of two it and the annual payment of it. being spe- whole nations. cified in ver. II. This is the whole case, Ver. 13.-0f Hu.ram my father's. The the discrepancies in which are plain, but words of eh. iv. 11, 16 would invest these they do not amount to contradictions. The with suspicion, if nothing that occurred be- ~ppea.rance that is worn on the face of things fore did, as e.g. the parallel passage (l 18 that the writer in Chronicles gives what Kings vii. 13, 14, 40). There can be no ea.me to be the final arrangement as to re- doubt from these passages that the no.me muneration, though confessedly it is placed Hura.m of this verse is the name of the work- as much as the account in Kings in tho man sent (the lamed prefixed being only the dr~ft of Solomvn's original l\pplio11tion to objective sign), not the supposed name of Hiram. Mee.sure&. 'fhese were cors, and King Himm's father, which, us already seen the cor was tho so.me as the homer. From was Abibul\l. But the following word tra.ns~ !l. calculation of some doubtfulness, however, lated " my father" C'=!~) is less easily ex• mude nnde1· tho suggestions of 1 Kiugs iv. plaiucd; oh. iv. 16 (" his fother ") is quite 22 TIIE SEOOND DOOK OF' 'l'l!E CllllONICLES. [on. n.1-18.