the course of events, he remarks straightway, “and He (God) smote Israel.” This, however, is no reason for thinking, with Berth., that the words have arisen out of a misinterpretation or alteration of 2Sa 24:10; for such anticipatory remarks, embracing the contents of the succeeding verses, not unfrequently occur in the historical books (cf. e.g., 1Ki 6:14; 1Ki 7:2). - In reference to 1Ch 21:8-10, see on 2Sa 24:10-16. - In 1Ch 21:12, נספּה has not come into the text by mistake or by misreading נסך (2Sa 24:13), but is original, the author of the Chronicle describing the two latter evils more at length than Samuel does. The word is not a participle, but a noun formed from the participle, with the signification “perishing” (the being snatched away). The second parallel clause, “the sword of thine enemies to attaining” (so that it reach thee), serves to intensify. So also in reference to the third evil, the יהוה חרב which precedes בּארץ דּבר, and the parallel clause added to both: “and the angel of the Lord destroying in the whole domain of Israel.”
Verse 15
1Ch 21:15 ליר מלאך האלהים ויּשׁלח, “And God sent an angel towards Jerusalem,” gives no suitable sense. Not because of the improbability that God sent the angel with the commission to destroy Jerusalem, and at the same moment gives the contrary command, “Stay now,” etc. (Berth.); for the reason of this change is given in the intermediate clause, “and at the time of the destroying the Lord repented it,” and command and prohibition are not given “at the same moment;” but the difficulty lies in the indefinite מלאך (without the article). For since the angel of Jahve is mentioned in 1Ch 21:12 as the bringer of the pestilence, in our verse, if it treats of the sending of this angel to execute the judgment spoken of, המּלאך must necessarily be used, or המּלאך את המּלא, as in 1Ch 21:16; the indefinite מלאך can by no means be used for it. In 2Sa 24:16 we read, instead of the words in question, יר המּלאך ידו ויּשׁלח, “and the angel stretched out his hand towards Jerusalem;” and Bertheau thinks that the reading האלהים (in the Chron.) has arisen out of that, by the letters ידו ה being exchanged for יהוה, and אלהים being substituted for this divine name, as is often the case in the Chronicle; while Movers, S. 91, on the contrary, considers the reading of the Chronicle to be original, and would read יהוה ישׁלח in Samuel. But in that way Movers leaves the omission of the article before מלאך in the Chronicle unexplained; and Bertheau's conjecture is opposed by the improbability of such a misunderstanding of a phrase so frequent and
