that here something is asserted which has been confirmed by history, and still less is it manifest (2Ch 15:5) that past times are pointed to. Whether the statement about the return to Jahve in the times of trouble (2Ch 15:4) refers to the past or to the future, depends upon whether the past or future is spoken of in 2Ch 15:3. But the unquiet condition of things portrayed in 2Ch 15:5 corresponds partly to various times in the period of the judges; and if, with Vitr., we compare the general characteristics of the religious condition of the times of the judges (Jdg 2:10.), we might certainly say that Israel in those times was without אמת אלהי, as it again and again forsook Jahve and served the Baals. And moreover, several examples of the oppression of Israel portrayed in 2Ch 15:5 and 2Ch 15:6 may be adduced from the time of the judges. Yet the words in 2Ch 15:6, even when their rhetorical character is taken into account, are too strong for the anarchic state of things during the period of the judges, and the internal struggles of that time (Jdg 12:1-6 and 2 Chron 20). And consequently, although Vitr. and Ramb. think that a reference to experiences already past, and oppressions already lived through, would have made a much deeper impression than pointing forward to future periods of oppression, yet Ramb. himself remarks, nihilominus tamen in saeculis Asae imperium antegressis vix ullum tempus post ingressum in terram Canaan et constitutam rempubl. Israel. posse ostendi, cui omnia criteria hujus orationis propheticae omni ex parte et secundum omnia pondera verbis insita conveniant. But, without doubt, the omission of any definite statement of the time in 2Ch 15:3 is decisive against the exclusive reference of this speech to the past, and to the period of the judges. The verse contains no verb, so that the words may just as well refer to the past as to the future. The prophet has not stated the time definitely, because he was giving utterance to truths which have force at all times,[1] and which Israel had had experience of already in the time of the judges, but would have much deeper experience of in the future.
We must take the words in this general sense, and supply neither a preterite nor a future in 2Ch 15:3, neither fuerant nor erunt, but must express the first clause by the present in English:
- ↑ As Ramb. therefore rightly remarks, “Vatem videri consulto abstinuisse a determinatione temporis, ut vela sensui quam amplissime panderentur, verbaque omnibus temporum periodis adplicari possent, in quibus criteria hic recensita adpareant.”
