- 162-
(^245) The verbs in vers. 1:2 must be given in the pluperfect, not the imperfect tense.
(^246) Ver. 8 shows that it could not have been "to Damascus."
(^247) At present in the British Museum.
(^248) On the somewhat complicated and difficult chronology of this period, comp. the Appendix at the end of this
Volume.
(^249) Supposing this clause to be genuine, as to which we have doubts, it must be translated as in the text, and not as in
the A.V. "Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah"; for which the original offers no warrant.
(^250) But in all these notices the well-known rule must always be kept in mind that as regards the reigns of kings the year
was counted from the month Nisan to Nisan. Thus a reign of two years might really represent only one of fourteen
months.
(^251) We must here call attention to the remarkable use of the term "Israel," not Judah, as applied to the southern
kingdom, 2 Chronicles 21:2, and also ver. 4. The same expression occurs in 2 Chronicles 12:1, 6; again in 15:17, and in
28:19, 27. In all these passages the name seems used with some reference to the law of God - as that which gave to
Israel its name, and made it the people of Israel. It is almost an anticipation of the New Testament use of that name.
(^252) It is needless to discuss at length the various views propounded in regard to this writing from Elijah the prophet.
There cannot be any reasonable doubt that Elijah the Tishbite is meant by that designation. Nor yet can we believe that
his life extended beyond the marriage of Jehoram with Athaliah. The history as hitherto traced seems incompatible with
any other view of the chronology. This idea that this letter came from heaven deserves as little serious consideration as
the opposite notion of its spurious insertion from some other document by a later writer, who thought Elijah must also
have been connected with the affairs of the southern kingdom of Judah. But in that case we would have expected more
frequent and prominent introduction of Elijah, and the solitariness of the mention of his name is evidence of the
genuineness of the notice.
(^253) This is the more noteworthy, and the more clearly points to the expected Messianic fulfillment of the promise, that
at the time when the Book of Chronicles appeared no scion of the house of David occupied the throne, nor was there
any human prospect of the restoration of that rule.
(^254) The expression "to give a light" is sufficiently explained by the passages quoted. In 2 Kings 8:19 the words are: "as
He [the LORD] promised him to give him [David] a light as regards his sons always [all the days]." In 2 Chronicles
21:7 the words, "and to his sons" must be paraphrased in the same sense, "and that to his sons."
(^255) In 2 Kings 8:21 we read that "Joram went over to Zair." This is probably a copyist's error for "Seir" ( hr;y[ix; for,
hr;y[ic e ), and similarly the strange expression in that connection in 2 Chronicles 21:9: "with his princes" ( wyr;c; ),
may originally depend on a similar misreading and an attempt at a gloss.
(^256) Comp. Robinson, Bible Researches, II., pp. 27-30.
(^257) Comp. Robinson, Bible Researches, II., pp. 27-30.
(^258) It is generally supposed that Jerusalem was taken. But of this there is no mention in the text, and the non-mention of
the plunder of the Temple as well as the reference to "the camp" in 2 Chronicles 22:1 seems inconsistent with it.
(^259) As regards the special disease of which Jehoram died, the curious reader may consult Trusen, Sitten, Gebr., u.
Krankh. d. allen Hebr. pp. 212, 213, where the author notes a similar case in his experience from the indiscriminate use
of a well-known English quack-medicine.
(^260) We mark, as significant synchronisms with the reign of Jehoram, the building of Carthage, and that the throne of
Tyre was occupied by the brother of Dido, Pygmalion: scelere ante alios immanior omnes. What a conjunction in Tyre,
Israel, and Judah; and what light it casts upon what some persons call the exclusiveness of the Old Testament
ordinances!
(^)