- 137-
(^122) At the same time, I confess that I am by no means convinced that such was the case.
The language of 1 Kings 9:1 should not be too closely pressed, and may be intended as
a sort of general transition from the subject previously treated to that in hand. The brief
notices in 2 Chronicles 7 seem rather to favor this idea.
(^123) This rendering of the term "Ethanim," seems preferable to that of "gifts," viz., fruits
(Thenius), or of "stand still," viz., equinox (Bottche).
(^124) It is impossible here to do more than indicate this train of thought. The reader will
be able to make out a perfect catena of confirmatory passages, extending over almost
all the books of Holy Scripture, or from age to age.
(^125) The expression, 1 Kings 8:9, seems to be incompatible with the notice in Hebrews
9:4. But not only according to the Talmud (Joma 52. b), but according to uniform
Jewish tradition (see apud Delitzsch Comm. z. Br. an die Hebr. p. 361), what is
mentioned in Hebrews 9:4 had been really placed in the Ark, although the emphatic
notice in 1 Kings 8:9 indicates that it was no longer there in the time of Solomon. It
may have been removed previous to, or after the capture of the Ark by the Philistines.
(^126) The Book of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 5:12-14) characteristically notes that the
Priests and Levites were raising holy chant and music.
(^127) Bahr here quotes this ancient comment: Nebula Deus se et representabat et velabat
and Buxtorf (Hist. Arcae Foed. ed. Bas. 1659, p. 115) adduces a very apt passage from
Abarbanel.
(^128) It is thus, and not as implying any actual benediction, either uttered or silent, that I
understand the words 1 Kings 8:14.
(^129) Compare the fuller account in 2 Chronicles 6:5, 6.
(^130) It is one of its many extraordinary instances of "begging the question," that modern
criticism boldly declares this whole prayer spurious, or rather relegates its composition
to a much later date, even so far as the Babylonish exile! The only objective ground by
which this dictum is supported, is the circumstance that the prayer is full of references
to the Book of Deuteronomy - which modern criticism has ruled to be non-Mosaic, and
of much later date - ergo, this prayer must share its fate! This kind of reasoning is, in
fact, to derive from one unproved hypothesis another even more unlikely! For we have
here, first, the accordant accounts (with but slight variations) in 1 Kings and 2
Chronicles; while, secondly (as Bleek has remarked), the wording of the prayer implies
a time and conditions when the Temple, Jerusalem, and the Davidic throne were still
(^)