성경 주석서

앞 책의 말미에서 우리는 하나님께서 솔로몬을 높이시고 이스라엘이 그에게 순종하였다는 것을 읽었다. 하나님과 이스라엘이 함께 그를 존귀하게 하였다. 이제 여기서 우리는 다음의 내용을 기록한 것을 보게 된다. I. 그가 제사로 하나님을 존귀하게 한 것(대하 1:1-6)과 기도로 존귀하게 한 것(대하 1:7-12). II. 그가 이스라엘의 힘과 부와 무역을 증대시킴으로써 이스라엘을 존귀하게 한 것(대하 1:13-17).

역대상·역대하 서론

1. 열왕기 두 권과 마찬가지로, 역대기 두 권도 본래 하나의 작품이었다. 이것이 두 "권"으로 나뉜 것은 칠십인역 번역자들에게서 비롯된 것으로 보이며, 그 구분은 제롬에게 받아들여졌고 그에게서 서방 교회의 여러 갈래로 전해졌다. 히브리어 성경에서 이 책의 제목은 문자적으로 "날마다의 행위" 또는 "사건들"을 뜻한다. 이 제목은 본래 여러 왕의 통치 기록에 붙던 이름이었으나, 뒤에는 그러한 개별 기록들로 이루어진 일반 역사서에도 적용되었다.

칠십인역 번역자들은 이 책의 내용과 성경 역사서들 가운데서 차지하는 위치에 더 적절하다고 여긴 제목으로 바꾸었다. 그것이 Paraleipomena, 곧 "빠뜨려진 것들"이라는 제목이다. 이 이름은 역대기가 사무엘서와 열왕기의 보충서이며, 말하자면 이전 역사서의 누락분을 보완하기 위해 주로 기록되었다는 뜻을 암시하려는 것이었다.

영어 제목 "Chronicles"는 불가타에서 유래한 말로서 본래 시간과 관련된 의미를 지닌다. 그러나 실제 용례에서는 연대기적 요소가 특별히 두드러지는 역사라기보다, 단순하고 원초적인 방식의 역사 서술을 가리킨다.

2. "역대기"는 구약의 다른 어떤 책과도 다른 위치에 서 있다. 그것은 역사서이지만 새로운 역사를 제시하는 것은 아니다. 저자는 이미 다른 이들이 밟아 간 땅을 다시 지나간다.

그가 그렇게 한 목적은 그가 염두에 둔 실제적 목표, 곧 자기 시대의 특수한 어려움에 대응하려는 데서 충분히 드러난다. 백성은 얼마 전에 포로 생활에서 돌아와 성전을 재건했지만, 포로 생활로 끊어진 옛 민족 생활의 실마리들을 아직 다시 잡지 못하고 있었다. 그러므로 그들은 먼저 자기들의 전체 역사, 세상 사건들의 과거 전 과정, 그리고 땅의 여러 민족 가운데 자기들이 차지한 위치를 상기할 필요가 있었다. 이것은 족보들을 통해 간결하고 건조하지만 충분하게 이루어졌다. 족보는 언제나 동양인들에게 특별한 매력을 지녀 왔다. 이어서 그들은 조직된 민족으로서의 자기 과거, 곧 한 정착 민족으로서, 그리고 민족 생활의 중심에 고정된 거처를 가진 종교를 지닌 백성으로서의 과거를 더 특별히 상기하게 되었다.

저자는 자기 동포들의 모든 장래 번영이 성전 예배의 보존, 제사장들과 레위 사람들의 합당한 유지, 반차들의 정규적 확립, 레위 가문들 사이에서 성전의 여러 직무를 정당하게 분배하는 일과 결부되어 있다고 굳게 확신하였다. 그러므로 그는 다윗, 솔로몬, 그리고 유다의 후대 왕들 아래서 이루어진 성전의 과거 역사로 동포들의 주의를 돌렸다. 그는 거의 모든 경우에 왕이 민족 종교에 대해 취한 태도에 정확히 상응하여 현세적 보상과 형벌이 뒤따랐음을 지적하였다. 이러한 과거의 그림, 곧 그 시대의 어법으로 쓰이고 최근 사건들을 자주 암시하며 가르치려는 도덕적 교훈을 끊임없이 반복하는, 이전 전체 역사에 대한 일종의 압축된 조망은 갓 돌아와 아직 안정되지 못한 백성에게 옛 서술들보다 훨씬 더 강하고 깊은 영향을 줄 수 있었다. 역대기는 말하자면 포로 이전의 민족과 포로 이후의 민족을 갈라놓은 간격에 다리를 놓았다. 그것은 민족의 운명이 그들 자신의 손에 있으며, 종교적 신실함이 반드시 하나님의 복을 확보할 것임을 보여 줌으로써 민족 생활을 회복하고, 소망을 되살리며, 높은 포부를 북돋우는 데 크게 기여했을 것이다.

3. 역대기가 포로 귀환 이후에 작성되었다는 사실은 그 결말 부분뿐 아니라 다른 여러 대목에서도 분명하다.

문체의 증거도 내용이 제공하는 증거와 일치한다. 그 어법은 모두 포로기 이후에 기록된 에스라, 느헤미야, 에스더의 어법과 유사하다. 아람어식 형태가 많고, 페르시아어에서 유래한 단어도 적어도 하나 있다. 그러므로 그 연대는 주전 538년보다 이르기는 어렵지만, 그보다 상당히 뒤일 수도 있다. 역대기와 에스라 사이의 문체적 연결이 매우 밀접하다는 점은 두 책이 같은 시기에, 혹은 같은 사람에 의해 작성되었을 가능성을 높인다. 많은 사람이 생각하듯 에스라가 저자라면, 그 연대는 주전 435년보다 훨씬 늦을 수 없다. 에스라는 아마 그 무렵에 죽었을 것이기 때문이다. 역대상 3:23-24의 족보는 이보다 후대의 것처럼 보이지만, 그것은 나중에 덧붙여진 부분일 수 있으므로, 이 책의 내용이나 문체 가운데 주전 450-435년이라는 연대를 개연성 없게 만드는 것은 없다.

4. 역대기 저자는 자기 권위 자료로 두 종류의 작품을 인용한다.

(a) 그가 가장 자주 언급하는 것은 일반 역사서, 곧 "이스라엘과 유다 열왕기"이다. 이것은 열왕기에서 계속 언급되는 두 역사서, 곧 "이스라엘 왕들의 역대지략"과 "유다 왕들의 역대지략"을 하나로 묶은 편집물이었다. 두 책을 하나로 합치는 일이 편리하다고 여겨졌던 것이다.

(b) 그가 인용하는 다른 작품들은 12부 또는 13부로 된 역사서들, 곧 민족 연대기의 특정 부분들을 다룬 선지자들의 저작이었다. 이 작품들의 정확한 성격은 우리에게 알려져 있지 않다. 그러나 그것들이 인용되는 방식으로 보아, 대체로 저자들이 살던 시대의 역사, 특히 종교사를 어느 정도 충실하게 다루었을 가능성이 높다. 그것들은 독립된 저술, 곧 각 시대의 사건들에 대한 개별 선지자들의 단행 연구로 볼 수 있다. 그 가운데 어떤 것은 때때로 우리의 "열왕기"가 아니라 "이스라엘과 유다 열왕기"에 편입되었고, 나머지는 몇 세기 동안 "열왕기"와 나란히 존재하면서 역대기 저자가 우리에게 전하는 많은 특별 정보를 제공하였다.

또한 저자가 이전의 모든 역사적 성경, 특히 오늘날 우리가 가진 사무엘서와 열왕기를 사용했다는 충분한 증거도 있다. 역대상 1-8장의 주요 자료는 창세기부터 룻기까지의 이전 성경이며, 여기에 거의 모든 이스라엘 지파의 "족장들"이 세심하게 보존한 가족 족보와 많은 중요한 가문사 같은 사적 자료에서 끌어온 진술들이 보충되었다. 역대상 10-27장의 주요 자료는 사무엘서이고, 역대하 1-36장의 자료는, 비록 주요 자료라고 하기는 어렵지만, 열왕기이다(난외 참조와 주석을 비교하라). 그러나 저자는 언제나 이러한 자료들 외에 또 다른 권위 자료를 가지고 있다. 사울의 죽음에서 예루살렘의 멸망에 이르기까지 유대 역사 가운데, 사라져 버린 어떤 자료에서 끌어온 새로운 사실들로 그가 밝히지 않은 부분은 없다.

5. 저작의 통일성을 가리키는 징표들이 다양성을 가리키는 징표들보다 우세하며, 전체 작품이 동일한 한 저자에게서 나왔다는 결론으로 이끈다. 역대상 1-9장의 서론부에서 매우 강하게 드러나는 족보적 경향은 저자의 두드러진 특징이며, 더 순수하게 역사적인 서술 부분에서도 계속 눈에 띈다. 반대로 단순한 족보 부분도 역사 장들을 움직이는 같은 정신으로 관통되어 있으며, 더 나아가 저자의 특징적인 표현들로 가득하다.

역사 서술(역대상 10장-역대하 36장)이 한 손에서 나왔다는 것은 거의 의심할 수 없다. 뚜렷하게 교훈적인 하나의 어조가 전체를 관통한다. 모든 두드러진 재난과 성공이 의인을 보상하고 악행자를 벌하시는 하나님의 섭리의 작용에 가장 직접적인 방식으로 돌려진다. 구성 방식도 어디에서나 동일하다. 서술의 토대로 사무엘서와 열왕기를 주로 사용하고, 이미 서술된 것은 축약하며, 독자에게 이미 알려진 중요한 사실들은 생략하고, 때로는 사소하고 중요한 것이라기보다 흥미로운 세부 사실들을, 때로는 앞선 역사가들이 그것을 지나쳤다는 사실이 놀라울 만큼 두드러진 새로운 사실들을 덧붙인다.

6. 역대기가 문장 중간에서 갑작스럽게 끝나는 것은, 그것이 본래 기록된 형태 그대로 우리에게 내려온 것이 아니라는 반박할 수 없는 논거이다.

또한 오늘날 역대기 사본들의 마지막 대목이 에스라서의 시작 부분에 다시 나타난다는 사실은, 두 책 사이에 문체와 어조의 매우 밀접한 유사성이 있다는 의심할 수 없는 사실과 함께 고려할 때, 자연스럽게 한 설명을 제시한다. 곧 가장 뛰어난 비평가들 가운데 일부가 받아들인 바와 같이, 역대기와 에스라가 본래 하나의 작품이었고 나중에 분리되었다는 설명이다. 그 분리는 아마 포로기 이후 시대의 역사를 연대 순서대로 배열하려는 바람에서 생겨났을 것이다.

7. 역대기의 본문 상태는 결코 만족스럽지 않다. 특히 인명과 지명에서 이문이 자주 발견되고, 특히 족보들에서 누락이 보이며, 숫자들은 때로 서로 모순되고, 때로 사무엘서나 열왕기의 더 개연성 있는 숫자들과 모순되며, 때로는 지나치게 커서 정당하게 의심받는다.

그러나 이 작품에는 더 심각한 성격의 결함은 없다. 통일성은 깨지지 않았고, 거의 모든 점에서 우리는 저자의 손에서 나온 그대로의 작품을 가지고 있다고 믿을 만한 모든 이유가 있다.

8. 사무엘서와 열왕기의 병행 역사와 비교할 때, 역대기의 역사는 세 가지 주요 특징을 지닌다.

(a) 종교의 외적 요소, 성전 예배의 세부 사항, 제사장들과 레위 사람들의 여러 기능, 반차의 배열 등에 더 머무는 경향이 있다. 그래서 역대기의 역사는 "교회적"이라고 불렸고, 사무엘서와 열왕기의 역사는 "정치적"이라고 불렸다. 이러한 경향은 신빙성을 떨어뜨리지 않으며, 그 역사를 신뢰할 가치가 없게 만들지도 않는다.

(b) 뚜렷한 족보적 편향과, 서술된 사건들에 관여한 사람들의 이름을 기록으로 남기려는 욕구가 있다.

(c) 역사의 모든 사건을 하나님의 작용에 더 지속적이고 공개적이며 직접적으로 돌리고, 특히 모든 큰 재난이나 구원을 군주나 민족의 선악 행위에 대한 하나님의 섭리적 형벌 또는 보상으로 더 분명하게 연결한다.

역대기를 사무엘서나 열왕기보다 덜 신뢰할 만한 것으로 볼 이유는 없다. 논쟁되는 지점들, 이른바 "레위적 정신", 모순, 주장되는 오류 등을 적절히 고려하더라도, 일반적으로 말해 저자의 정직성이나 그의 작품의 진정성이 훼손되지는 않는다. 이 책은 일부 구성 부분을 제외하면 모든 부분에서 진정한 것으로 공정하게 간주될 수 있다. 그 일부는 때때로 손상을 입은 것으로 보이지만, 같은 고대성을 지닌 다른 책들의 경우보다 더 큰 정도는 아니다. 하나님께서는 이런 종류의 흠으로부터 자신의 말씀을 완전히 자유롭게 보존하기를 기뻐하지 않으셨다. 오늘날에는 그러한 흠의 발생이 나머지 서술의 진정성에 지극히 미미한 정도라도 영향을 준다고 주장하기 어려울 것이다.

역대기의 문체는 열왕기의 문체보다 더 단순하고 덜 고상하다. 역대상 16장의 다윗의 시편과 역대하 6장의 솔로몬의 기도를 제외하면, 전체는 산문적이고 평탄하며 균일하다. 열왕기에서처럼 특별히 인상적인 장들은 없다. 그러나 이 책은 회복된 민족에게 말하면서 그들을 고무하고 활력을 불어넣으려 하므로 덜 침울하다. 바벨론 강가에서 울던 포로 백성은 열왕기에서 자신들의 슬픈 역사를 읽기에 적합했다. 해방되어 소망 가운데 새로운 삶으로 들어가던 민족은 역대기에서 자기들의 과거에 대한 회고를 발견했는데, 그것은 그들이 들어서고 있던 진보의 길에서 앞으로 나아가도록 돕기에 알맞은 것이었다.

솔로몬과 회중의 지도자들이 기브온으로 간다. 그곳에는 주의 성막과 놋제단이 있었고, 거기서 그는 천 번의 제사를 드린다. 주께서 꿈에 그에게 나타나셔서 어떤 선물이든 구하라고 허락하신다. 그는 지혜를 구하고, 그것이 허락된다. 그뿐 아니라 재물과 부와 존귀도 더해진다. 그의 왕국이 견고해진다. 그의 병거들과 마병들과 말들이 언급된다. 그의 풍성한 부가 언급된다. 그는 정해진 값으로 애굽에서 말들과 세마포 실과 병거들을 들여온다.

역대하 서론

이 책과 앞의 책은 본래 한 권이었으나 그 분량 때문에 둘로 나뉘었다. 그러므로 이 책은 앞선 역사의 연속일 따름이다. 앞의 책은 다윗의 죽음에서 끝나고, 이 책은 솔로몬의 통치로 시작하여 그 치세를 두루 지나며, 다윗 집안의 모든 왕들의 치세를 다룬다. 열 지파가 갈라져 나간 뒤로는 오직 유다 왕들만을 다루어 유다가 바벨론으로 사로잡혀 간 데까지 곧장 내려가고, 고레스로 말미암아 유대인이 거기서 놓여난 일에까지 이르니, 사백칠십구 년의 역사를 담고 있다. 분열 이후 이스라엘 왕들에 대해서는 전혀 다루지 않고 오직 유다 왕들만 다루는데, 메시아의 계보가 그들을 통하여 이어졌기 때문이다. 또 열왕기에 그들에 관하여 기록된 여러 일을 생략하기는 하나, 거기서는 만날 수 없는 일화를 풍성히 전하여 주니, 이는 역사를 아는 데 크게 유익하고 쓸모가 있다.

역대하 1장 서론

이 장은 솔로몬이 그 나라에서 굳게 선 뒤에 제사를 드리러 기브온으로 간 일 2 Chronicles 1:1, 여호와께서 거기서 그에게 나타나신 일과 그 사이에 오간 말 2 Chronicles 1:7, 그리고 그가 거기서 예루살렘으로 돌아왔을 때 영화와 부와 재물이 더하여진 일 2 Chronicles 1:13 을 이야기한다.

THE SECOND BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES.

THE REIGN OF SOLOMON (2 Chronicles 1-9).

II. Chronicles.

BY

THE REV. C. J. BALL, M.A.

1. 2 Chronicles 1. describes a national sacrifice at Gibeon, and in connection therewith a dream in which God reveals His will to Solomon (1Kings 3:5). A few details are added respecting Solomon’s power, wealth, and commerce.

2. 2 Chronicles 2-7. are concerned with the principal topic of the writer’s presentation, viz., the building and consecration of the Temple.

3. 2 Chronicles 8, 9 supply further particulars of Solomon’s public works, his regulation of worship, his foreign relations, his revenues, wisdom, and glory; followed by a reference to authorities, and notice of his death.

§ 1. Title.—In the Hebrew MSS. the Books of Chronicles form a continuous work, bearing the general name of Dibrê hayyâmîm (“Events of the Days,” or “History of the Times”), which is no doubt an abridgment of Sêpher dibrê hayyâmîm—i.e., “The Book of the Events (or History) of the Times.” (Comp. 2Kings 14:19; 1Chronicles 27:24; Esther 6:1; Esther 10:2.) This designation is not given in the text of the work itself, but was prefixed by some unknown editor. Accordingly we find a different title in the LXX., which divides the work into two books, called Παραλειπομένων πρω̑τον and δευτερὸν (“First and Second [Book] of Things omitted”); or, Παραλειπομένων βασιλέων or, in some MSS., τῶν βασιλείοον ΙονδαÌ, α and β (“First and Second Book of omitted Notices of the Kings or the Kingdoms of Judah”). This title indicates that, in the opinion of the Greek translators, the work was intended as a kind of supplement to the older historical books. In that case, however, great part of Chronicles could only be considered redundant and superfluous, consisting, as it does, in the mere repetition of narratives already incorporated in Samuel and Kings. (See § 5, infra.) The name by which we know the work, and which fairly represents the Hebrew designation, is derived from St. Jerome, who says:—“Dibre hayamim, id est, Verba dierum, quod significantius Chronicon totius divinae historiae possumus appellare, qui liber apud nos Paralipomenon primus et secundus inscribitur” (Prolog, galeat.). The work, however, is not a mere chronicle or book of annals, although somewhat resembling one in its external form, and deriving its facts from annalistic sources (§ 7, infra). In the Vulgate we find the heading, “The First Book of Paralipomena, in Hebrew Dibre Haiamim.” In the Peshito-Syriac, “Next the Book of the Rule of Days [Dûbor yaumâthâ) of the Kings of Judah, which is cailed Sephar debar yamîn.” In the Arabic, “In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. The First Book of the Kitâb ’akhbâri ’l’ayyâmi—the Book of the Histories of the Days; which is called in the Hebrew, Dibrâ hayyâmîn.”

That Chronicles was originally a single, undivided work, is evident from the Masoretic note at the end of the Hebrew text, which states that 1Chronicles 27:25 is the middle verse of the whole book. Moreover, Josephus, Origen (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25), Jerome, and the Talmud reckon but one book of Chronicles. The Peshito-Syriac ends with the remark”: “Finished is the book of Debar yamin, in which are 5,603 verses”—implying the unity of the work. The present division into two books, which certainly occurs in the most suitable place, was first made by the LXX. translators, from whom it was adopted by St. Jerome in the Vulgate, and so passed into the other versions and the modern printed editions of the Hebrew Bible.

§ 2. Relation to the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.—An attentive examination of the Hebrew text of the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, soon reveals the important fact that the three apparently separate works resemble each other very closely, not only in style and language, which is that of the latest age of Hebrew writing, but also in the general point of view, in the manner in which the original authorities are handled and the sacred Law expressly cited, and, above all, in the marked preference for certain topics, such as genealogical and statistical registers, descriptions of religious rites and festivals, detailed accounts of the sacerdotal classes and their various functions, notices of the music of the Temple, and similar matters connected with the organisation of public worship. These resemblances in manner, method, and matter, raise a strong presumption of unity of authorship, which is accordingly asserted by most modern scholars. As regards Chronicles and Ezra, this result is further indicated by the strange termination of the Chronicles in the middle of an unfinished sentence, which finds its due completion in the opening verses of Ezra. (Comp. 2Chronicles 36:22-23 with Ezra 1:1-4.) Had Chronicles been an independent work, it might have ended less abruptly at 2Chronicles 36:21. But there is no real break in the narrative between 2 Chronicles 36 and Ezra 1; and the awkwardness of the existing division simply points to the perplexity of some editor or transcriber, who did not know where to leave off. It is absurd to lay any stress on the two trivial variants between the two passages. They are not marks of an editorial hand, but merely errors of transcription. (See Notes on 2Chronicles 36:22-23.)

There are other facts which combine with the above considerations to prove that Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah originally constituted a single great history, composed upon a uniform plan by one author. Thus there is actually extant part of a Greek version of the three books which ignores their division. The Third Book of Esdras is, with certain important omissions and additions, an independent translation of the history from 2 Chronicles 35 to Nehemiah 8:12. In this work the edict of Cyrus occurs but once; and it is evident that the author’s Hebrew text did not divide the history into three distinct books.

Further, the ancients did not separate Ezra and Nehemiah in the modern fashion. The Talmudic treatise Baba bathra (fol. 15. A), the Masorah, and the Christian fathers Origen and Jerome, regard Ezra-Nehemiah as a single work; and it appears in the Vulgate as 1st and 2nd of Esdras, a non-fundamental division like that of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, into two books each. Indeed, the Book of Ezra as it stands is an unfinished fragment, which finds its natural continuation in Nehemiah 8 sea., where the history of Ezra’s part in the restoration is further pursued. Lastly, the notes of time in Chronicles and Nehemiah coincide (see § 3 infra); and the genealogies of the high priests from Eleazar to Jehozadak in 1Chronicles 6:4-16, and from Jeshua to Jaddua in Nehemiah 12:10-11, are given in the same form, and are obviously complementary, covering, as they do, when taken together, the whole period from Moses to Alexander the Great.

The LXX. translators found Chronicles already severed from Ezra-Nehemiah. This division is explicable in connection with the formation of the Hebrew Canon. In the Hebrew text the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah precedes Chronicles, apparently because the value of this, the newer and more interesting portion of the whole work, was recognised first. Chronicles may well have been regarded as of less importance, because to a great extent it merely repeats the familiar narratives of Samuel and Kings. In no long time, however, it was perceived that the new relation of the ancient history was animated by the spirit of the age, and its catalogues of family descent, and its detailed treatment of religious matters, won for it first, perhaps, general use as a manual of instruction, and then the last place in the sacred Canon.

§ 3. Date.—The orthography and language of the Chronicle, its Levitical tendency, and its position at the end of the Hagiographa, conspire to suggest a comparatively late origin. Other internal evidence of a more definite character enables us to settle the question of date with approximate precision. The partially confused passage, 1Chronicles 3:19-24, carries the line of David’s posterity down to at least the sixth generation from Zerubbabel, who along with the High Priest Jeshua conducted the first return, B.C. 536. According to R. Benjamin in the Me’or ‘enayim (fol. 153. A, quoted by Zunz), as many as nine generations must be reckoned from Jesaiah to Johanan in this genealogy. In like manner, the LXX. makes eleven generations from Zerubbabel to the last name in the list. This brings the date of the author down to about B.C. 200, if we count thirty years to the generation. This was the opinion of Zunz, whom Nöldeke follows. Kuenen also favours a late epoch, asserting that “the author must have lived about B.C. 250.” These views, however, are not accepted by the majority of modern scholars; and they rest upon a highly questionable interpretation of the passage under consideration. (See Notes on 1Chronicles 3:19, seq.)

What is certain is, that both in this genealogy of the house of David, and in that of the high priests, the writer descends several generations below the age of Ezra and Nehemiah, who flourished about B.C. 445. Thus in Nehemiah 12:10-11 the line of the high priests is traced as far as Jaddua, who was the fifth successor of Jeshua the contemporary of Zerubbabei. Josephus informs us that Jaddua came into personal contact with Alexander the Great (Antiq. xi. 7, 8). This points to a date about B.C. 330. Again, Nehemiah 12:22 appears to speak of Jaddua and “Darius the Persian” (i.e., Codomannus) as belonging to an earlier age than the writer; and Nehemiah 12:47 refers to “the days of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah” as to a past already distant

It is an acute suggestion of Ewald’s that the chronicler’s designation of Cyrus and Darius as “kings of Persia,” indicates that he lived and wrote after the fall of the Persian monarchy. The reckoning by “darics” in 1Chronicles 29:7 does not prove authorship during the Persian dominion. The Persian coinage would not disappear from use immediately upon the establishment of the Greek supremacy. A few other terms survived in the language as vestiges of the Persian age; and the Temple fortress was still called the Baris (comp. the Persian baru) in the days of Josephus. On the other hand, Prof. Dillmann is probably right in asserting that “there are no reasons of any sort for fixing the authorship of the Chronicle as late as the third century, or even later.” The limits of the two genealogies above considered are evidence against such a conclusion. Upon the whole, it appears likely that the great historical work, of which Chronicles forms the largest section, was compiled between the years B.C. 330 and B.C. 300, and perhaps somewhat nearer the latter than the former date.

§ 4. Author.—“Ezra wrote his own book, and the genealogy of the Chronicles down to himself.” Such is the assertion of the Talmud (Baba bathra, fol. 15. A). But we are no more bound to accept this as fact than the preceding statements which connect Moses with the Book of Job, and—more wonderful still—Adam with the Psalms. The grain of truth embodied in the tradition is simply this, that the compiler of the last great book of history has drawn largely upon the authentic memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah, incorporating whole sections of their journals in his work. But, as every Hebrew scholar knows, a single hand can be traced throughout the three books now called Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah; and the original documents stand out in sharp contrast to their modern setting, wherever the compiler has been contented to transcribe verbally. From the entire tone and spirit of the work, it is reasonably inferred by most critics that it was the production of a Levite attached to the Temple at Jerusalem in the latter half of the fourth century B.C. Ewald further supposes the author to have belonged to one of the guilds of Levitical musicians: a conjecture which is highly probable, considering how much the work has to tell us about the Temple choirs and their music. Keil objects that the porters are mentioned as often as the musicians, and that therefore we might just as well assume the chronicler to have been a porter or Temple-warder. But an acquaintance with musical technicalities such as the writer displays almost certainly proves him to have been a member of one of the musical guilds. Similarly, it is no reply to allege that priests are made quite as prominent in the work as Levitical warders and musicians. The priests are naturally mentioned on all religious occasions as being the principal functionaries. The fact that the inferior ministers are so persistently brought forward in their company—which is not the case in the older history—proves the peculiar interest of the author in these latter.

§ 5. Contents.—Character and Scope of the Work. The Chronicle opens with an outline of primeval history from Adam to David. The Pentateuchal narratives, however, are not repeated, because the five books were already recognised as canonical, and the writer had nothing to add to them. In like manner, the times of the Judges and the reign of Saul are passed over. The chronicler had no special sources for that period, and it did not appear to lend itself easily to the illustration of the particular lesson which he wished to enforce upon his readers. Accordingly the first section of his work takes the driest and most succinct form imaginable, that of a series of genealogies interspersed with brief historical notices (1 Chronicles 1-9). The writer’s extraordinary fondness for genealogical and statistical tables is apparent also in other parts of his history, and is to be explained by reference to the special requirements of the post-exilic age. (Comp. Ezra 2:59, seq.) Here, after tracing the generations from Adam to Jacob, the writer gives a flying survey of the twelve tribes, lingering longest over Judah, the tribe of David, and Levi, the tribe of the priests; after which (in 2 Chronicles 8, 9) his horizon narrows at once from all Israel to the southern kingdom only (Benjamin, Judah, Jerusalem). 2 Chronicles 10—the death of Saul—is transitional to the reign of David, which follows at length (1 Chronicles 11-29).

The second and main portion of the work (1 Chronicles 11 -2 Chronicles 36) relates the history of the kings who reigned in Jerusalem from David to Zedekian, thus covering a period of between four and five centuries (B.C. 1055-588). The third part contains the history of the restored community under Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah (B.C. 536-432), and is now known as the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. (See the Introduction to those books.)

When we consider the second part of this great compilation, we are immediately struck by the large space occupied by the reign of David. To the chronicler, as to the prophetic historians before him, that reign, it would seem, was the golden age of his people’s history. The greater distance at which he stood from the old heroic times of the monarchy only intensified the spell which they wrought upon his imagination. He does not, however, repeat the familiar tale of David’s romantic adventures, of his reign at Hebron, of his sin against Uriah, of the revolt of Absalom, and similar matters. His point of view and the needs of his contemporaries are different from those of the older historians; and it is as the true founder of Jerusalem and the Temple, with its beautiful service of music and song, and as the prime author of the priestly organisation, that the heroic figure of David engages his highest interest. Accordingly, all that refers to the activity of the king in these directions is described with intentional fulness and emphasis. (See 1 Chronicles 13-18, 12-29)

The reign of Solomon is treated much more briefly, though at considerably greater length than any subsequent one (2 Chronicles 1-9). Here again we observe a fuller description of whatever relates to religion and its ministers. In fact, the account of the building and dedication of the Temple occupies by far the largest part of the narrative (2 Chronicles 2-7).

The rest of the history is told from the same standpoint. After the division of the kingdom, the writer follows the fortunes of the Davidic monarchy, which was the more important from a religious, if not from a political, point of view. The northern kingdom he almost entirely ignores, as founded upon apostasy from the orthodox worship, as well as from the legitimate rule of the house of David. Even in this limited field, political, military, and personal facts and incidents are subordinated to the religious interest, and it is obvious that the real subject of the history is everywhere that holy religion which made Israel what it was, and upon which its historical significance wholly depends. Thus the reigns of Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Hezekiah, and Josiah are especially prominent, because they witnessed the initiation of important religious reforms, and the restoration of Jerusalem and its sanctuary to their hereditary rank as the religious centre of the nation. And thus “traditions about the Temple and its worship, the sacerdotal orders and their functions, the merits of the kings and others in the matter of the cultus, are presented with great fulness, and the author expatiates with evident delight on the sacred festivals of the olden time. Reigns of which little of the sort could be told are briefly treated” (Dillmann).

From all this we may gather the aim of the work. The writer has produced not so much a supplement of the older histories, as an independent work, in which the history of the chosen people is related afresh in a new manner, and from a new point of view. That point of view has been characterised as the priestly-Levitical, in contradistinction to the prophetical spirit of the ancient writers. To understand this, we must remember that in the chronicler’s day the political independence of Israel was a thing of the past; and that the religion of the Law was the most precious survival from the great catastrophe which had finally shattered the nation, and the principle of cohesion and the basis of all order, public and private, in the new community. The writer’s main object, therefore, is to urge upon his contemporaries a faithful observance of the Mosaic Law; and he seeks to impress his lesson by presenting a picture of times and occasions when, with the Temple as its centre, and the priests and Levites as its organs, the legitimate worship flourished and brought blessing upon the land.

§ 6. Documental Authorities. Relation to the Books of Samuel and Kings.—Besides a number of narratives running parallel to those of Samuel and Kings, the Books of Chronicles contain other important accounts which are without parallel in the older histories. Such are many of the genealogical and statistical tables, as well as certain supplementary details and stories inserted in different reigns. The former, which possessed a very special interest for the chronicler’s contemporaries, were ultimately derived from those ancient taxation rolls or assessment lists, which were so highly valued by the Jews in the times, immediately preceding and subsequent to the captivity (Ezra 2:59; Ezra 2:62). These catalogues may in some cases have been preserved independently, but it is probable that the chronicler found most of them already incorporated in the historical compilations which constituted his principal authorities. (Comp. 1Chronicles 5:17; 1Chronicles 7:2; 1Chronicles 9:1; 1Chronicles 23:3; 1Chronicles 23:27; 1Chronicles 26:31; 1Chronicles 27:24; Nehemiah 12:23; Nehemiah 7:5.) The censuses, for instance, to which reference is made in 1Chronicles 5:17; 1Chronicles 7:2, were doubtless entered in the state annals.

The second, and to us more important, historical element peculiar to Chronicles is equally based upon trustworthy records of an earlier period. The writer refers from time to time to documents which he presumes to be well known to his readers, for further details upon subjects which he does not himself care to pursue. At first sight the number of these documents appears to be so considerable as to excite surprise, especially when we remember that the compiler of Kings mentions only two or three such primary documents. For almost every reign a different source appears to be cited; which is the more remarkable, inasmuch as the titles indicate that more than one of the histories referred to must have contained the entire history of the kings of Jerusalem. The references in question are:

1.The History of Samuel the seer,

2.The history of Nathan the prophet,

3.The history of Gad the seer,

}

in 1Chronicles 29:29, for David.

4.The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite,

5.The vision of Je-edi or Je-edo the seer against Jeroboam ben Nebat,

}

in 2Chronicles 9:29, for Solomon.

6.The history of Shemaiah the prophet,

7.The history of Iddo the seer,

}

in 2Chronicles 12:15, for Rehoboam.

8.The Midrash of the prophet Iddo, in 2Chronicles 13:22, for Abijah.

9.The book of the kings of Judah and Israel, in 2Chronicles 16:11; 2Chronicles 25:26; 2Chronicles 28:26, for Asa, Amaziah, and Ahaz.

10.The history of Jehu the son of Hanani, inserted in the book of the kings of Israel, in 2Chronicles 20:34, for Jehoshaphat

11.The Midrash of the book of the Kings, in 2Chronicles 24:27, for Joash.

12.The history of Uzziah, by Isaiah the prophet, 2Chronicles 26:22.

13.The book of the kings of Israel and Judah, in 2Chronicles 27:7; 2Chronicles 35:27; 2Chronicles 36:8, for Jotham, Josiah, and Jehoiakim. Perhaps also in 1Chronicles 9:1.

14.The vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, in the books of the kings of Judah and Israel, 2Chronicles 32:32, for Hezekiah.

15.The history of the kings of Israel, 2Chronicles 33:18,

16.The history of Hozai (or, The words of the Seers), 2Chronicles 33:19,

}

for Manasseh.

Six reigns, viz., those of Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah, are without any such references.

The similarity of some of these sixteen titles favours the supposition of their being merely variations of each other. “The book of the kings of Judah and Israel” (9) may at once be equated with “the book of the kings of Israel and Judah” (13). “The history (words) of the kings of Israel” (15) is an expression tantamount to “the book of the kings of Israel” (10). Five at least, then, of the above citations refer to a single work, a “history of the kings of Judah and Israel.” This work appears to have been a compilation based upon the same annalistic sources as the canonical books of Kings—viz., “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel,” and “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.” It was probably younger than the canonical Kings, and was perhaps in some degree influenced by the form and contents of that work. That it was not identical therewith, as used to be assumed, is certain, because it contained much which is not found there—e.g., genealogical and other lists, and the account of Manasseh’s captivity and restoration (2Chronicles 33:18); and the chronicler often refers to this work for fuller information in cases where the narrative in the existing Book of Kings is even briefer than his own. (Comp. 2 Chronicles 27 with 2Kings 15:32-38.)

The references to prophetic “words” (dibrê), or rather histories, are by some supposed to imply the existence of a number of historical monographs written by the prophets with whose names they are connected. But “the history of Jehu the son of Hanani” (10) is expressly cited, not as an independent work, but as a section of the great Book of the Kings; and “the vision of Isaiah the prophet (14) is another section of the same work. Moreover, when the chronicler does not refer to the history he generally mentions a prophetic account, but never both for the same reign (unless 2Chronicles 33:18-19 be an exception). It is likely, therefore, that the other prophetic histories (Numbers 1-7) were integral parts of the same great compilation, and are merely cited in briefer form, perhaps as the chronicler found them already cited in that his principal source. We do not know what were the grounds which determined the selection of a work by the unknown collectors of the Canon, but it seems certain that had a number of separate writings of such prophets as Samuel, Nathan, Gad, and Isaiah been extant in the chronicler’s age, they would have been included in the Canon.

The “history of Uzziah, which Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz wrote” (12; see 2Chronicles 26:22), does not appear to be an exception to the above general inference. Whether, as Prof. Dillmann thinks, the chronicler himself supposed Isaiah to have been the author of the history of Uzziah as embodied in the great Book of the Kings (comp. Isaiah 6 l), or whether, as is more likely, he merely copies the reference from that source, makes no difference. On the other hand, it is, of course, quite possible that an independent monograph of Isaiah’s did exist and was known to the chronicler, although no trace of it is to be recognised in the canonical Books of Kings or Isaiah. Similar considerations would apply to “the history of Hozai” (16; see 2Chronicles 33:19), which is apparently contrasted in 2Chronicles 33:19 with “the history of the kings of Israel,” were it not likely that the text of that passage is unsound.

Lastly, the chronicler refers besides to a “Midrash of the prophet Iddo” (8), and a “Midrash of the book of the Kings” (11). The former may have been a section of the latter work. In this, as in the preceding cases, it was natural to cite a particular passage of a large book of history, by mentioning the name of the prophet with whose activity it was chiefly concerned; because the division of the canonical books into sections and chapters was unknown to antiquity (comp. our Lord’s reference in Mark 12:26, “in the bush,” i.e., in the section relating to the burning bush; and St. Paul’s “in Elias,” Romans 11:2.)

The term “Midrash” occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament. It means “search,” “investigation,” “study,” and is the neo-Hebraic term for the Rabbinical exegesis of the sacred books. A Beth-midrash is a school in which the Law and other scriptures are studied under the lead of a Rabbi, whose disciples are called talmîdîm, a word first occurring in 1Chronicles 25:8. “The Midrash of the book of the Kings” was probably a kind of commentary or expository amplification of the great “history of the Kings of Judah and Israel;” and the chronicler may have derived other narratives from this source, besides the two for which he cites it. But it is pure dogmatism to say, with Reuss, that “his work from one end to the other is drawn from a Midrash; and it is this Midrash that is responsible for all that provokes our doubts, including the history of Uzziah written by Isaiah.” The Midrash which the chronicler consulted may really have been an early predecessor of that series of works so well known to students of Rabbinical Hebrew as the Midrashim (Bereshith rabba, Shemoth rabba, &c. &c.); but its intrinsic superiority to all these later works is evident from the extracts preserved in the Chronicles.

We have now characterised the two principal sources of the accounts peculiar to the Books of Chronicles. The compiler may, of course, have had at his command other documents besides those to which he refers by name; but probably they were few in number, and certainly of subordinate importance.

It remains to ask what is the precise relation between the forty or more passages of Chronicles which are more or less exact duplicates of parallel passages in Samuel and Kings?

This question can hardly be answered with certainty. The negative criticism which flourished in Germany at the beginning of the present century found an easy offhand reply in the theory that the chronicler transcribed his parallel accounts directly from the canonical Books of Samuel and Kings. All deviations and peculiarities were results of misunderstanding, fictitious embellishment, and wilful perversion of the older history. It would hardly be worth while to revive the memory of this unhistorical and obsolete criticism, were it not still salutary to signalise the former errors of scholars whose theories for a time enjoyed unbounded influence, by way of suggesting caution to such persons as are inclined to accord a too hasty acceptance to similarly destructive hypotheses advocated by men of acknowledged ability at the present day. What is certain is, (1) that the chronicler must have known the great history now divided into the Books of Samuel and Kings; (2) that many of his narratives at different points verbally coincide with these books, and so far might have been transcribed from them; but (3) these coincidences may be accounted for by the supposition advanced above, viz., that the same ancient state annals were the principal source from which both the compiler of the older canonical history, and the compiler of that “book of the kings of Judah and Israel” which supplied the chronicler with so much of his narrative, derived the staple of their history; and further, that the “book of the kings of Judah and Israel” may have been in part constructed on the model of the already existing Books of Samuel and Kings. At the same time we may freely admit that the form into which the history was already cast in the older work would naturally exert some, and perhaps a considerable, influence upon the mind and work of the latest historian of Israel.

§ 7. The Historical Value of Chronicles.—This question has in part been already decided by the results at which we arrived in discussing the prior question of the sources. All that remains to be determined is, whether and how far the chronicler was faithful to his authorities. Whatever charges of distortion, misinterpretation, falsification, fictitious embellishment, &c. &c, of the ancient history have been levelled against him by earlier critics, have been amply disproven by their successors. Such charges depended for the most part upon the assumption that he had no other documents than the canonical books of the Old Testament—an assumption sufficiently rebutted by impartial examination of internal evidence. Comparing the parallel sections with their duplicates in Samuel and Kings, we find in general an assiduous and faithful reproduction of the sources, which warrants us in supposing that the important passages of the narrative which are peculiar to Chronicles were likewise extracted with substantial accuracy from other historical records no longer extant. Often, indeed, in such passages the style is so much purer than that which we identify as the chronicler’s own, as to suggest at once that he is simply transcribing from an ancient document; though more usually he has recast what he found in his authority. It is admitted that the chronicler wrote with a distinct purpose, and that his aim was not so much history for its own sake, as edification. He writes neither as a modern scientific historian, nor as a mere annalist, but with a distinctly didactic and hortatory object. Accordingly, in the exercise of his lawful discretion, he omits some well-known passages of the ancient history, and adds others more to his purpose. He habitually inserts remarks of his own, which put the facts narrated into relation to the working of Divine Providence, and so bring into prominence the religious aspect of events, while religious conceptions prevalent in his own age naturally find expression through his pages. (Comp. 1Chronicles 21:1 with 2Samuel 24:1) Moreover, he does not hesitate, nor would any writer of his time have hesitated, to put appropriate speeches into the mouths of leading personages, some of which betray their ideal character by a close similarity in form and matter; and although in some cases he undoubtedly had genuine tradition at his command, and simply followed his documents, in others he has freely expanded the meagre records of the past, and developed the fundamental thoughts of the speakers according to his own taste. In the description of ancient religious solemnities he has reasonably enough been influenced by his minute professional knowledge of the ritual of his own day, and has thus succeeded in his purpose of lending animation to the dry memoranda of the past. Yet it must not be forgotten that he probably had substantial precedents for this mode of treatment, and, further, that in antiquity religious custom is the least likely sphere of innovation. Besides all this, the chronicler has considered the needs and tastes of his own time by substituting current for obsolete Hebrew words, phrases, and constructions, and by interpretation, paraphrase, and correction of what seemed obscure or faulty in the ancient texts. The mode of spelling (scriptio plena), and the Aramaisms which characterise his work, are what were to be expected from a writer of his age. In these latter respects the Chronicle already foreshadows the Targum or “Chaldee” Paraphrase.

Many deviations from the older canonical history, especially in the matter of names and numbers, are due to errors of transcription in one or the other text; and many may be ascribed to the licence of editors and copyists, which in those early times far exceeded what would now be considered allowable. To appreciate this argument, it is only necessary to examine the LXX. translation of the Books of Samuel, which obviously represents a Hebrew original differing in many important particulars from the present Masoretic Recension. Discrepancies due to such causes obviously do not affect the credibility of the chronicler. And with regard to excessive numbers, in particular, we have to bear in mind “the tendency of numbers to grow in successive transcriptions,” and the fact already demonstrated (§ 6) that Chronicles was only indirectly derived from the same primary sources as Samuel and Kings. The existing text of the older books is itself not free from exaggerated numbers (see 1Samuel 6:19; 1Samuel 13:5); and in some instances the figures of Chronicles are lower and intrinsically more probable than those of the older history. (Comp. 2Chronicles 9:25 with 1Kings 5:6.) After making every allowance upon these and similar grounds, the impartial critic will still acquiesce in the conclusion of Ewald, that “we should deprive ourselves of one of the richest and oldest sources of the Davidical history, if we failed to do justice to the very remarkable remains of the state annals fortunately preserved to us in the Book of Chronicles;” and that “this work, when rightly understood and applied, not only yields very valuable supplements to the history of the (Davidic) monarchy, the foundation of which undoubtedly rested on the original state annals, but also tells us of many prophets, of whose very names we should have otherwise been wholly ignorant” (Hist. of Israel, Martineau’s Translation, p. 195).

§ 8. Literature of the Subject.—A list of the older commentators may be read in Carpzov and in Lange’s Bibelwerk. The principal modern works known to the present writer are Bertheau’s (English Trans, in Clarke’s Foreign Library, 2nd ed. 1860); Keil’s, also translated in Clarke’s series (ed. 1872); Zockler’s, in Lange (English trans., 1876); and that of Reuss (ed. Paris, 1878). He has also had before him L’Abbé Martin’s Commentary (ed. Paris, 1880), a recent work by a Roman Catholic priest, which closely follows Keil and Zöckler. The criticisms of Thenius in his Die Bücher der Könige (Leipzig, 1873) have always been considered, and specially noticed whenever it seemed advisable.

The following have been consulted upon introductory questions:—Gramberg (Die Chronik nach ihrem geschichtlicheii Charakter, &c. Halle, 1823). His reasonings are interesting from a historical point of view, but his conclusions are thoroughly unfair, and no longer require refutation. Graf (Die gesch. Bücher des alt. Test. Leipzig, 1866), Also a hostile criticism. De Wette’s Einleitung, as re-edited by Schrader, who modifies the more extreme dicta of the original author. Movers (Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die bibl. Chronik. Bonn, 1834); a reply to Gramberg and De Wette. Keil’s Einleitung (Frankfurt, 1853). Zöckler’s Handbuch der theolog. Wissenschaften (Nõrdlingen, 1882). Ewald’s History of Israel (Martineau’s English Transi., Longmans, 1876). Kuenen’s History of Israel (English Transl., 1875) follows Graf in exaggerating the subjective and unhistorical tendency of the chronicler. Wellhausen’s tract, De gentibus et familiis Judaeis quae 1 Chronicles 2-4 enumerantur (Göttingen, 1870), is very important for the right understanding of the genealogies. The article Chronik, by Prof. Dillmann, in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopädie is a specially fair estimate of the work; and the same may be said of Prof. Robertson Smith’s Chronicles in the Encyclopœdia Britannica. The writer has also to acknowledge considerable obligations to the same author’s Old Testament in the Jewish Church, and The Prophets of Israel, and to Schrader’s Keilin-schriften und das Aite Testament (Giessen, 1883). For several important suggestions he is indebted to his friend Prof. Sayce, who kindly looked through the Notes on the greater part of the first book.

§ 9. Ancient Versions. State of the Hebrew Text.—The translation of Chronicles in the LXX. is carefully and skilfully done, is strictly literal, and one of the best works of those translators, far surpassing the Books of Samuel and Kings, which proceed from another hand. In many passages it still preserves an unquestionably better reading than that of the Masoretic Recension. In too many instances, however, it has had its readings altered into conformity with later Greek versions of the textus receptus, and thus its originality has in part been obliterated by the hands of injudicious editors. (See Movers’ Untersuch., p. 93.) In the Greek of 2 Chronicles 35, 36 there are a few interpolations corresponding to passages in 2 Kings 23, 24

The old Latin versions, upon which the Vulgate is based, followed the LXX.

The Peshittā (Peshito) Syriac version presents many surprising peculiarities of omission, interpolation, transposition, and paraphrase, insomuch that it resembles a Jewish Targum rather than a literal version. This phenomenon suggests that Chronicles was perhaps not received with the original collection of sacred books in the Peshito (Dillmann).

The Arabic version is a daughter of the Syriac, and possesses little independent value for the criticism of the text.

The Targum is late (seventh century?) and is not printed in the Rabbinical Bibles. Lagarde has recently edited another, which I have not been able to procure. The four versions have been consulted in Walton’s Polyglot; and for the LXX. Tischendorf’s edition has also been used. The unsatisfactory condition of the Hebrew text, due perhaps to the fact that Chronicles was never so highly valued as other portions of the Canon, may in part be remedied by careful comparison of the data of the versions, as well as of the other books of the Old Testament.

대하 1:1-6.

기브온에서 솔로몬이 드린 엄숙한 제사.

다윗의 아들 솔로몬 - 이 책의 바로 시작은 그것이 앞 책의 계속이며, 이렇게 형식적으로 분리되어서는 안 된다는 것을 보여 준다. 첫째 책의 서문을 보라.

그의 하나님 주께서 그와 함께 계셨더라 - "주의 말씀이 그의 버팀이었다." - 타르굼.

다윗의 아들 솔로몬이 그 나라에서 강성하여지니,.... 곧 그에게서 화가 미치리라 예상할 만한 몇 사람이 죽은 뒤에 그 아버지의 왕위에 든든히 자리 잡고 굳게 세워졌다는 것이다. 1 Kings 2:46 을 보라.

여호와 하나님께서 그와 함께 계시니라; 그를 지도하고 가르치시며, 그를 형통하게 하시고 성공하게 하셨다는 것이다. 타르굼은 "여호와의 말씀이 그의 도움이 되셨다"라고 한다. 그를 심히 창대하게 하시니라; 1 Chronicles 29:25 을 보라.