Biblical commentary the Old Testament/Volume III. Early Prophets/2 Chronicles

by Franz Delitzsch

III. History of Solomon's Kingship - 2 Chronicles 1-9

The kingship of Solomon centres in the building of the temple of the Lord, and the account of that begins in 2 Chron 2 with a statement of the preparations which Solomon made for the accomplishment of this great work, so much pressed upon him by his father, and concludes in 2 Chron 7 with the answer which the Lord gave to his consecrating prayer in a vision. In 2 Chron 1, before the history of the temple building, we have an account of the sacrifice at Gibeon by which Solomon inaugurated his reign (2Ch 1:1-13), with some short notices of his power and riches (2Ch 1:14-17); and in 2 Chron 8 and 9, after the temple building, we have summary statements about the palaces and cities which he built (2Ch 8:1-11), the arrangement of the regular religious service (2Ch 8:12-16), the voyage to Ophir (2Ch 8:17, 2Ch 8:18), the visit of the queen of Sheba (2Ch 9:1-12), his riches and his royal magnificence and glory (2 Chron 9:13-28), with the concluding notices of the duration of his reign, and of his death (2Ch 9:29, 2Ch 9:30). If we compare with this the description of Solomon's reign in 1 Kings 1-11, we find that in the Chronicle not only are the narratives of his accession to the throne in consequence of Adonijah's attempted usurpation, and his confirming his kingdom by punishing the revolter (1 Kings 1 and 2), of his marriage to the Egyptian princess (1Ki 3:1, 1Ki 3:2), his wise judgment (1Ki 3:16-28), his public officers, his official men, his royal magnificence and glory (1 Kings 4:1-5:14), omitted, but also the accounts of the building of his palace (1Ki 7:1-12), of his idolatry, and of the adversaries who rose against him (1 Kings 11:1-40). On the other hand, the description of the building and consecration of the temple is supplemented by various important details which are omitted from the first book of Kings. Hence it is clear that the author of the Chronicle purposed only to portray more exactly the building of the house of God, and has only shortly touched upon all the other undertakings of this wise and fortunate king.

Chap. 1

Verses 1-6

2Ch 1:1-6
The sacrifice at Gibeon, and the theophany. - 2Ch 1:1-6. When Solomon had established himself upon his throne, he went with the princes and representatives of the congregation of Israel to Gibeon, to seek for the divine blessing upon his reign by a solemn sacrifice to be offered there before the tabernacle. 2Ch 1:1 forms, as it were, the superscription of the account of Solomon's reign which follows. In וגו ויּתחזּק = Solomon established himself in his kingdom, i.e., he became strong and mighty in his kingdom, the older commentators saw a reference to the defeat of Adonijah, the pretender to the crown, and his followers (1 Kings 2). But this view of the words is too narrow; we find the same remark made of other kings whose succession to the throne had not been questioned (cf. 2Ch 12:13; 2Ch 13:21; 2Ch 17:1, and 2Ch 21:4), and the remark refers to the whole reign-to all that Solomon undertook in order to establish a firm dominion, not merely to his entry upon it. With this view of the words, the second clause, “his God was with him, and made him very great,” coincides. God gave His blessing to all that Solomon did for this end. With the last words cf. 1Ch 29:25.
We have an account of the sacrifice at Gibeon (2Ch 1:7-13) in 1Ki 3:4-15 also. The two narratives agree in all the main points, but, in so far as their form is concerned, it is at once discernible that they are two independent descriptions of the same thing, but derived from the same sources. In 1 Kings 3 the theophany-in our text, on the contrary, that aspect of the sacrifice which connected it with the public worship-is more circumstantially narrated. While in 1Ki 3:4 it is briefly said the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, our historian records that Solomon summoned the princes and representatives of the people to this solemn act, and accompanied by them went to Gibeon. This sacrifice was no mere private sacrifice-it was the religious consecration of the opening of his reign, at which the estates of the kingdom were present as a matter of course. “All Israel” is defined by “the princes over the thousands ..., the judges, and all the honourable;” then לכל־שׂראל is again taken up and explained by the apposition האבות ראשׁי: to all Israel, viz., the heads of the fathers'-houses. ל is to be repeated before ראשׁי. What Solomon said to all Israel through its representatives, is not communicated; but it may be gathered from what succeeds, that he summoned them to accompany him to Gibeon to offer the sacrifice. The reason why he offered his sacrifice at the בּמה, i.e., place of sacrifice, is given in 2Ch 1:3. There the Mosaic tabernacle stood, yet without the ark, which David had caused to be brought up from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem (1Ch 13:1-14 and 15). In לו בּהכין the article in ba represents the relative אשׁר = בּאשׁר or לו הכין אשׁר בּמקום; cf. Jdg 5:27; Rth 1:16; 1Ki 21:19; see on 1Ch 26:28. Although the ark was separated from the tabernacle, yet by the latter at Gibeon was the Mosaic altar of burnt-offering, and on that account the sanctuary at Gibeon was Jahve's dwelling, and the legal place of worship for burnt-offerings of national-theocratic import. “As our historian here brings forward emphatically the fact that Solomon offered his burnt-offering at the legal place of worship, so he points out in 1Ch 21:28-30 :1, how David was only brought by extraordinary events, and special signs from God, to sacrifice on the altar of burnt-offering erected by him on the threshing-floor of Ornan, and also states how he was prevented from offering his burnt-offering in Gibeon” (Berth.). As to Bezaleel, the maker of the brazen altar, cf. Exo 31:2 and Exo 37:1. Instead of שׂם, which most manuscripts and many editions have before לפני, and which the Targ. and Syr. also express, there is found in most editions of the 16th century, and also in manuscripts, שׁם, which the lxx and Vulgate also read. The reading שׁם is unquestionably better and more correct, and the Masoretic pointing שׂם, posuit, has arisen by an undue assimilation of it to Exo 40:29. The suffix in ידרשׁהוּ does not refer to the altar, but to the preceding word יהוה; cf. אלהים דּרשׁ,   1Ch 21:30; 1Ch 15:13, etc.

Verses 7-10

The theophany, cf. 1Ki 3:5-15. In that night, i.e., on the night succeeding the day of the sacrifice. The appearance of God by night points to a dream, and in 1Ki 3:5-15 we are expressly informed that He appeared in a vision. Solomon's address to God, 2Ch 1:8-10, is in 1Ki 3:6-10 given more at length. The mode of expression brings to mind 1Ch 17:23, and recurs in 2Ch 6:17; 1Ki 8:26. מדּע, with Pathach in the second syllable, elsewhere מדּע (2Ch 1:11, 2Ch 1:12), occurs elsewhere only in Dan 1:4, Dan 1:17; Ecc 10:20.

Verses 11-13

The divine promise. Here עשׁר is strengthened by the addition נכסים, treasures (Jos 22:8; Ecc 5:18; Ecc 6:2). תּשׁפּט אשׁר, ut judicare possis. In general, the mode of expression is briefer than in 1Ki 3:11-13, and the conditional promise, “long life” (1Ki 3:14), is omitted, because Solomon did not fulfil the condition, and the promise was not fulfilled. In 2Ch 1:13 לבּמה is unintelligible, and has probably come into our text only by a backward glance at 2Ch 1:3, instead of מהבּמה, which the contents demand, and as the lxx and Vulgate have rightly translated it. The addition, “from before the tabernacle,” which seems superfluous after the preceding “from the Bamah at Gibeon,” is inserted in order again to point to the place of sacrifice at Gibeon, and to the legal validity of the sacrifices offered there (Berth.). According to 1Ki 3:15, Solomon, on his return to Jerusalem, offered before the ark still other burnt-offerings and thank-offerings, and prepared a meal for his servants. This is omitted by the author of the Chronicle, because these sacrifices had no ultimate import for Solomon's reign, and not, as Then, supposes, because in his view only the sacrifices offered on the ancient brazen altar of burnt-offering belonging to the temple had legal validity. For he narrates at length in 1Ch 21:18, 1Ch 21:26. how God Himself directed David to sacrifice in Jerusalem, and how the sacrifice offered there was graciously accepted by fire from heaven, and the threshing-floor of Araunah thereby consecrated as a place of sacrifice; and it is only with the purpose of explaining to his readers why Solomon offered the solemn burnt-offering in Gibeon, and not, as we should have expected from 1 Chron 21, in Jerusalem, that he is so circumstantial in his statements as to the tabernacle. The last clause of 2Ch 1:13, “and he was king over Israel,” does not belong to the section treating of the sacrifice at Gibeon, but corresponds to the remark in 1Ki 4:1, and forms the transition to what follows.Solomon's chariots, horses, and riches. - In order to prove by facts the fulfilment of the divine promise which Solomon received in answer to his prayer at Gibeon, we have in 1Ki 3:16-28 a narrative of Solomon's wise judgment, then in 2 Chron 4 an account of his public officers; and in 2Ch 5:1-14 the royal magnificence, glory, and wisdom of his reign is further portrayed. In our Chronicle, on the contrary, we have in 2Ch 1:14-17 only a short statement as to his chariots and horses, and the wealth in silver and gold to be found in the land, merely for the purpose of showing how God had given him riches and possessions. This statement recurs verbally in 1Ki 10:26-29, in the concluding remarks on the riches and splendour of Solomon's reign; while in the parallel passage, 2 Chron 9:13-28, it is repeated in an abridged form, and interwoven with other statements. From this we see in how free and peculiar a manner the author of the Chronicle has made use of his authorities, and how he has arranged the material derived from them according to his own special plan.^[1]
For the commentary on this section, see on 1Ki 10:26-28.

Verses 14-15

2Ch 1:14-15 2Ch 1:14, 2Ch 1:15, with the exception of one divergence in form and one in matter, correspond word for word to 1Ki 10:26 and 1Ki 10:27. Instead of ויּנחם, he led them (Kings), there stands in 2Ch 1:15, as in 2Ch 9:25, the more expressive word ויּנּיהם, “he laid them” in the chariot cities; and in 2Ch 1:15 ואת־הזּהב is added to את־הכּסף, while it is omitted from both 1Ki 10:27 and also 2Ch 9:27. It is, however, very suitable in this connection, since the comparison “like stones” has reference to quantity, and Solomon had collected not only silver, but also gold, in quantity.

Verses 16-17

2Ch 1:16-17 2Ch 1:16, 2Ch 1:17 coincide with 1Ki 10:28-29, except that מקרא is used for hw'q;mi, and ותּצא ותּעלה is altered into ויּוציאוּ ויּעלוּ. For the commentary on these verses, see 1Ki 10:28.Jehoshaphat's victory over the Moabites, Ammonites, and other nations; and the remaining items of information as to his reign. - Vv. 1-30. The victory over the hostile peoples who invaded Judah. In the succeeding time, the Moabites and Ammonites, in alliance with other tribes of Mount Seir, invaded Judah with the purpose of driving the people of God out of their country, and extirpating them (2Ch 20:1). On being informed of this invasion, Jehoshaphat sought help of the Lord, while he proclaimed a fast in the land, and in the temple before the assembled people prayed God for His help (2Ch 20:2-12); and received by the mouth of the prophet Jahaziel the promise that God would fight for Judah, and that king and people would next day behold the help the Lord would give (2Ch 20:13-18). And so it happened. On the following day, when the Judaean army, with the Levitic singers and players at their head, came into the wilderness Jeruel, their enemies had by the dispensation of God mutually destroyed each other (2Ch 20:19-24), so that Jehoshaphat and his people found the proposed battle-field full of corpses, and gathered spoil for three days, and then on the fourth day, in the Valley of Blessing, they praised the Lord for the wonderful deliverance; thereafter returning to Jerusalem with joy, again to thank the Lord in the house of God for His help (2Ch 20:25-30).

Chap. 2

Verses 1-2

2Ch 2:1-2 (Hebrew_Bible_1:18). The account of these is introduced by 1:18: “Solomon thought to build.” אמר with an infinitive following does not signify here to command one to do anything, as e.g., in 1Ch 21:17, but to purpose to do something, as e.g., in 1Ki 5:5. For יהוה לשׁם, see on 1Ki 5:17. למלכוּתו בּית, house for his kingdom, i.e., the royal palace. The building of this palace is indeed shortly spoken of in 2Ch 2:11; 2Ch 7:11, and 2Ch 8:1, but is not in the Chronicle described in detail as in 1Ki 7:1-12.
With 2Ch 2:1 begins the account of the preparations which Solomon made for the erection of these buildings, especially of the temple building, accompanied by a statement that the king caused all the workmen of the necessary sort in his kingdom to be numbered. There follows thereafter an account of the negotiations with King Hiram of Tyre in regard to the sending of a skilful architect, and of the necessary materials, such as cedar wood and hewn stones, from Lebanon (2Ch 2:2-15); and, in conclusion, the statements as to the levying of the statute labourers of Israel (2Ch 2:1) are repeated and rendered more complete (2Ch 2:16, 2Ch 2:17). If we compare the parallel account in 1Ki 5:5., we find that Solomon's negotiation with Hiram about the proposed buildings is preceded (1Ki 5:5) by a notice, that Hiram, after he had heard of Solomon's accession, had sent him an embassy to congratulate him. This notice is omitted in the Chronicle, because it was of no importance in the negotiations which succeeded. In the account of Solomon's negotiation with Hiram, both narratives (2Ch 2:2-15 and 1Ki 5:16.) agree in the main, but differ in form so considerably, that it is manifest that they are free adaptations of one common original document, quite independent of each other, as has been already remarked on 1Ki 5:5. On 2Ch 2:2 see further on 1Ki 5:15.

Verses 3-10

2Ch 2:3-10 (Hebrew_Bible_2:2-9). Solomon, through his ambassadors, addressed himself to Huram king of Tyre, with the request that he would send him an architect and building wood for the temple. On the Tyrian king Huram or Hiram, the contemporary of David and Solomon, see the discussion on 2Sa 5:11. According to the account in 1 Kings 5, Solomon asked cedar wood from Lebanon from Hiram; according to our account, which is more exact, he desired an architect, and cedar, cypress, and other wood. In 1 Kings 5 the motive of Solomon's request is given in the communication to Hiram, viz., that David could not carry out the building of the proposed temple on account of his wars, but that Jahve had given him (Solomon) rest and peace, so that he now, in accordance with the divine promise to David, desired to carry on the building (1Ki 5:3-5). In the 2Ch 2:2-5, on the contrary, Solomon reminds the Tyrian king of the friendliness with which he had supplied his father David with cedar wood for his palace, and then announces to him his purpose to build a temple to the Lord, at the same time stating that it was designed for the worship of God, whom the heavens and the earth cannot contain. It is clear, therefore, that both authors have expanded the fundamental thoughts of their authority in somewhat freer fashion. The apodosis of the clause beginning with כּאשׁר is wanting, and the sentence is an anacolouthon. The apodosis should be: “do so also for me, and send me cedars.” This latter clause follows in 2Ch 2:6, 2Ch 2:7, while the first can easily be supplied, as is done e.g., in the Vulg., by sic fac mecum.

Verse 4

2Ch 2:4 “Behold, I will build.” הנּה with a participle of that which is imminent, what one intends to do. לו להקדּישׁ, to sanctify (the house) to Him. The infinitive clause which follows (וגו להקטיר) defines more clearly the design of the temple. The temple is to be consecrated by worshipping Him there in the manner prescribed, by burning incense, etc. סמּים קטרת, incense of odours, Exo 25:6, which was burnt every morning and evening on the altar of incense, Exo 30:7. The clauses which follow are to be connected by zeugma with להקטיר, i.e., the verbs corresponding to the objects are to be supplied from הקטיר: “and to spread the continual spreading of bread” (Exo 25:30), and to offer burnt-offerings, as is prescribed in Num 28 and 29. וגו זאת לעולם, for ever is this enjoined upon Israel, cf. 1Ch 23:31.

Verses 5-6

In order properly to worship Jahve by these sacrifices, the temple must be large, because Jahve is greater than all gods; cf. Exo 18:11; Deu 10:17.
No one is able (כּוח עצר as in 1Ch 29:14) to build a house in which this God could dwell, for the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him. These words are a reminiscence of Solomon's prayer (1Ki 8:27; 2Ch 6:18). How should I (Solomon) be able to build Him a house, scil. that He should dwell therein? In connection with this, there then comes the thought: and that is not my purpose, but only to offer incense before Him will I build a temple. הקטיר is used as pars pro toto, to designate the whole worship of the Lord. After this declaration of the purpose, there follows in Deu 10:6 the request that he would send him for this end a skilful chief workman, and the necessary material, viz., costly woods. The chief workman was to be a man wise to work in gold, silver, etc. According to 2Ch 4:11-16 and 1Ki 7:13., he prepared the brazen and metal work, and the vessels of the temple; here, on the contrary, and in 2Ch 2:13 also, he is described as a man who was skilful also in purple weaving, and in stone and wood work, to denote that he was an artificer who could take charge of all the artistic work connected with the building of the temple. To indicate this, all the costly materials which were to be employed for the temple and its vessels are enumerated. ארגּון, the later form of ארגּמן, deep-red purple, see on Exo 25:4. כּרמיל, occurring only here, 2Ch 2:6, 2Ch 2:13, and in 2Ch 3:14, in the signification of the Heb. שׁני תּולעת, crimson or scarlet purple, see on Exo 25:4. It is not originally a Hebrew word, but is probably derived from the Old-Persian, and has been imported, along with the thing itself, from Persia by the Hebrews. תּכלת, deep-blue purple, hyacinth purple, see on Exo 25:4. פּתּוּהים פּתּח, to make engraved work, and Exo 28:9, Exo 28:11, Exo 28:36, and Exo 39:6, of engraving precious stones, but used here, as כּל־פּתּוּח, 2Ch 2:13, shows, in the general signification of engraved work in metal or carved work in wood; cf. 1Ki 6:29. עם־החכמים depends upon לעשׂות: to work in gold ..., together with the wise (skilful) men which are with me in Judah. הכין אשׁר, quos comparavit, cf. 1Ch 28:21; 1Ch 22:15.

Verse 7

The materials Hiram was to send were cedar, cypress, and algummim wood from Lebanon. אלגוּמים, 2Ch 2:7 and 2Ch 9:10, instead of אלמגּים,   1Ki 10:11, probably means sandal wood, which was employed in the temple, according to 1Ki 10:12, for stairs and musical instruments, and is therefore mentioned here, although it did not grow in Lebanon, but, according to 1Ki 9:10 and 1Ki 10:11, was procured at Ophir. Here, in our enumeration, it is inexactly grouped along with the cedars and cypresses brought from Lebanon.

Verses 8-9

The infinitive וּלהכין cannot be regarded as the continuation of לכרות, nor is it a continuation of the imperat. לי שׁלח (2Ch 2:7), with the signification, “and let there be prepared for me” (Berth.). It is subordinated to the preceding clauses: send me cedars, which thy people who are skilful in the matter hew, and in that my servants will assist, in order, viz., to prepare me building timber in plenty (the ו is explic). On 2Ch 2:8 cf. 2Ch 2:4. The infin. abs. הפלא is used adverbially: “wonderfully” (Ew. §280, c). In return, Solomon promises to supply the Tyrian workmen with grain, wine, and oil for their maintenance - a circumstance which is omitted in 1Ki 5:10; see on 2Ch 2:14. להטבים is more closely defined by העצים לכרתי, and ל is the introductory ל: “and behold, as to the hewers, the fellers of trees.” חטב, to hew (wood), and to dress it (Deu 29:10; Jos 9:21, Jos 9:23), would seem to have been supplanted by חצב, which in 2Ch 2:2, 2Ch 2:18 is used for it, and it is therefore explained by העצים כּרת. “I will give wheat מכּות to thy servants” (the hewers of wood). The word מכּות gives no suitable sense; for “wheat of the strokes,” for threshed wheat, would be a very extraordinary expression, even apart from the facts that wheat, which is always reckoned by measure, is as a matter of course supposed to be threshed, and that no such addition is made use of with the barley. מכּות is probably only an orthographical error for מכּלת, food, as may be seen from 1Ki 5:11.

Verses 11-16

2Ch 2:11-16The answer of King Hiram; cf. 1Ki 5:7-11. - Hiram answered בּכתב, in a writing, a letter, which he sent to Solomon. In 1Ki 5:7 Hiram first expresses his joy at Solomon's request, because it was of importance to him to be on a friendly footing with the king of Israel. In the Chronicle his writing begins with the congratulation: because Jahve loveth His people, hath He made thee king over them. Cf. for the expression, 2Ch 9:8 and 1Ki 10:9. He then, according to both narratives, praises God that He has given David so wise a son. ויּאמר, 2Ch 2:12, means: then he said further. The praise of God is heightened in the Chronicle by Hiram's entering into Solomon's religious ideas, calling Jahve the Creator of heaven and earth. Then, further, חכם בּן is strengthened by וּבינה שׂכל יודע, having understanding and discernment; and this predicate is specially referred to Solomon's resolve to build a temple to the Lord. Then in 2Ch 2:13. he promises to send Solomon the artificer Huram-Abi. On the title אבי, my father, i.e., minister, counsellor, and the descent of this man, cf. the commentary on 1Ki 7:13-14. In 2Ch 2:14 of the Chronicle his artistic skill is described in terms coinciding with Solomon's wish in 2Ch 2:6, only heightened by small additions. To the metals as materials in which he could work, there are added stone and wood work, and to the woven fabrics בּוּץ (byssus), the later word for שׁשׁ; and finally, to exhaust the whole, he is said to be able כּל־מח ולחשׁב, to devise all manner of devices which shall be put to him, as in Exo 31:4, he being thus raised to the level of Bezaleel, the chief artificer of the tabernacle. עם־חכמיך is dependent upon לעשׂות, as in 2Ch 2:6. The promise to send cedars and cypresses is for the sake of brevity here omitted, and only indirectly indicated in 2Ch 2:16. In 2Ch 2:15, however, it is mentioned that Hiram accepted the promised supply of grain, wine, and oil for the labourers; and 2Ch 2:16 closes with the promise to fell the wood required in Lebanon, and to cause it to be sent in floats to Joppa (Jaffa), whence Solomon could take it up to Jerusalem. The word צרך, “need,” is a ἅπαξ λεγ. in the Old Testament, but is very common in Aramaic writings. רפסדות, “floats,” too, occurs only here instead of דּבבות,   1Ki 5:9, and its etymology is unknown. If we compare 1Ki 5:13-16 with the parallel account in 1Ki 5:8-11, we find that, besides Hiram's somewhat verbose promise to fell the desired quantity of cedars and cypresses on Lebanon, and to send them in floats by sea to the place appointed by Solomon, the latter contains a request from Hiram that Solomon would give him לחם, maintenance for his house, and a concluding remark that Hiram sent Solomon cedar wood, while Solomon gave Hiram, year by year, 20,000 kor of wheat as food for his house, i.e., the royal household, and twenty kor beaten oil, that is, of the finest oil. In the book of Kings, therefore, the promised wages of grain, wine, and oil, which were sent to the Tyrian woodcutters, is passed over, and only the quantity of wheat and finest oil which Solomon gave to the Tyrian king for his household, year by year, in return for the timber sent, is mentioned. In the Chronicle, on the contrary, only the wages or payment to the woodcutters is mentioned, and the return made for the building timber is not spoken of; but there is no reason for bringing these two passages, which treat of different things, into harmony by alterations of the text. For further discussion of this and of the measures, see on 1Ki 5:11.

Verses 17-18

In 2Ch 2:17 and 2Ch 2:18 the short statement in 2Ch 2:2 as to Solomon's statute labourers is again taken up and expanded. Solomon caused all the men to be numbered who dwelt in the land of Israel as strangers, viz., the descendants of the Canaanites who were not exterminated, “according to the numbering (ספר occurs only here) as his father David had numbered them.” This remark refers to 1Ch 22:2, where, however, it is only said that David commanded the strangers to be assembled. But as he caused them to be assembled in order to secure labourers for the building of the temple, he doubtless caused them to be numbered; and to this reference is here made. The numbering gave a total of 153,000 men, of whom 70,000 were made bearers of burdens, 80,000 חצב, i.e., probably hewers of stone and wood בּהר, i.e., on Lebanon, and 3600 foremen or overseers over the workmen, את־העם להעביד, to cause the people to work, that is, to hold them to their task. With this cf. 1Ki 5:15., where the number of the overseers is stated at 3300. This difference is explained by the fact that in the Chronicle the total number of overseers, of higher and lower rank, is given, while in the book of Kings only the number of overseers of the lower rank is given without the higher overseers. Solomon had in all 550 higher overseers of the builders (Israelite and Canaanite), - cf. 1Ki 9:23; and of these, 250 were Israelites, who alone are mentioned in 2Ch 8:10, while the remaining 300 were Canaanites. The total number of overseers is the same in both accounts, - 3850; who are divided in the Chronicle into 3600 Canaanitish and 250 Israelitish, in the book of Kings into 3300 lower and 550 higher overseers (see on 1Ki 5:16). It is, moreover, stated in 1Ki 5:12. that Solomon had levied a force of 30,000 statute labourers from among the people of Israel, with the design that a third part of them, that is, 10,000 men, should labour alternately for a month at a time in Lebanon, looking after their own affairs at home during the two following months. This levy of workmen from among the people of Israel is not mentioned in the Chronicle.

Chap. 3

Verses 1-2

The Building of the Temple - 2 Chronicles 3-5:1 (Cf. 1 Kings 6; 7:13-51.)

The description of the building begins with a statement of the place where and of the time when the temple was built (2Ch 3:1-2). Then follows an account of the proportions of the building, a description of the individual parts, commencing on the outside and advancing inwards. First we have the porch (2Ch 3:3, 2Ch 3:4), then the house, i.e., the interior apartment or the holy place (2Ch 3:5-7), then the holiest of all, and cherubim therein (2Ch 3:8-13), and the veil of partition between the holy place and the most holy (2Ch 3:14). After that we have the furniture of the court, the pillars of the porch (2Ch 3:15-17), the brazen altar (2Ch 4:1), the brazen sea (2Ch 4:2-5), the ten lavers (2Ch 4:6), the furniture of the holy place, candlesticks and tables (2Ch 4:7, 2Ch 4:8), and of the two courts (2Ch 4:9, 2Ch 4:10), and finally a summary enumeration of the brazen and golden utensils of the temple (2Ch 4:11, 2Ch 4:12). The description in 1 Kings 6 and 7 is differently arranged; the divine promise which Solomon received while the building was in progress, and a description of the building of the palace, being inserted: see on 1 Kings 6 and 7.
2Ch 3:1-2 The building of the temple. - 2Ch 3:1-3. The statements as to the place where the temple was built (2Ch 3:1) are found here only. Mount Moriah is manifestly the mountain in the land of Moriah where Abraham was to have sacrificed his son Isaac (Gen 22:2), which had received the name המּוריּה, i.e., “the appearance of Jahve,” from that event. It is the mountain which lies to the north-east of Zion, now called Haram after the most sacred mosque of the Mohammedans, which is built there; cf. Rosen, das Haram von Jerusalem, Gotha 1866. לד נראה אשׁר is usually translated: “which was pointed out to David his father.” But ראה has not in Niphal the signification “to be pointed out,” which is peculiar to the Hophal (cf. Exo 25:40; Exo 26:30; Deu 4:35, etc.); it means only “to be seen,” “to let oneself be seen,” to appear, especially used of appearances of God. It cannot be shown to be anywhere used of a place which lets itself be seen, or appears to one. We must therefore translate: “on mount Moriah, where He had appeared to David his father.” The unexpressed subject יהוה is easily supplied from the context; and with אשׁר בּהר, “on the mountain where,” cf. אשׁר בּמּקום, Gen 35:13., and Ew. §331, c, 3. הכין אשׁר is separated from what precedes, and connected with what follows, by the Athnach under אביהוּ, and is translated, after the lxx, Vulg., and Syr., as a hyperbaton thus: “in the place where David had prepared,” scil. the building of the temple by the laying up of the materials there (1Ch 22:5; 1Ch 29:2). But there are no proper analogies to such a hyperbaton, since Jer 14:1 and Jer 46:1 are differently constituted. Berth. therefore is of opinion that our text can only signify, “which temple he prepared on the place of David,” and that this reading cannot be the original, because הכין occurs elsewhere only of David's activity in preparing for the building of the temple, and “place of David” cannot, without further ceremony, mean the place which David had chosen. He would therefore transpose the words thus: דויד הכין אשׁר בּמקום. But this conjecture is by no means certain. In the first place, the mere transposition of the words is not sufficient; we must also alter בּמקום into בּמּקום, to get the required sense; and, further, Bertheau's reasons are not conclusive. הכין means not merely to make ready for (zurüsten), to prepare, but also to make ready, make (bereiten), found e.g., 1Ki 6:19; Ezr 3:3; and the frequent use of this word in reference to David's action in preparing for the building of the temple does not prove that it has this signification here also. The clause may be quite well translated, with J. J. Rambach: “quam domum praeparavit (Salomo) in loco Davidis.” The expression “David's place,” for “place which David had fixed upon,” cannot in this connection be misunderstood, but yet it cannot be denied that the clause is stiff and constrained if we refer it to יהוה את־בּית. We would therefore prefer to give up the Masoretic punctuation, and construe the words otherwise, connecting הכין אשׁר with the preceding thus: where Jahve had appeared to his father David, who had prepared (the house, i.e., the building of it), and make בּמקום ד, with the following designation of the place, to depend upon לבנות as a further explanation of the הם בּהר, viz., in the place of David, i.e., on the place fixed by David on the threshing-floor of the Jebusite Ornan; cf. 1Ch 21:18. - In 2Ch 3:2 לבנות ויּחל is repeated in order to fix the time of the building. In 1Ki 6:1 the time is fixed by its relation to the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. בּשּׁני, which the older commentators always understood of the second day of the month, is strange. Elsewhere the day of the month is always designated by the cardinal number with the addition of לחרשׁ or יום, the month having been previously given. Berth. therefore considers בּשּׁני to be a gloss which has come into the text by a repetition of השּׁני, since the lxx and Vulg. have not expressed it.

Verse 3

2Ch 3:3 “And this is Solomon's founding, to build the house of God;” i.e., this is the foundation which Solomon laid for the building of the house of God. The infin. Hoph. הוּסד is used here and in Ezr 3:11 substantively. The measurements only of the length and breadth of the building are given; the height, which is stated in 1Ki 6:2, is omitted here. The former, i.e., the ancient measurement, is the Mosaic or sacred cubit, which, according to Eze 40:5 and Eze 43:13, was a handbreadth longer than the civil cubit of the earlier time; see on 1Ki 6:2.

Verses 4-7

2Ch 3:4-7The porch and the interior of the holy place. - 2Ch 3:4. The porch which was before (i.e., in front of) the length (of the house), was twenty cubits before the breadth of the house, i.e., was as broad as the house. So understood, the words give an intelligible sense. הארך with the article refers back to הארך in 2Ch 3:3 (the length of the house), and על־פּני in the two defining clauses means “in front;” but in the first clause it is “lying in front of the house,” i.e., built in front; in the second it is “measured across the front of the breadth of the house.”^[2]
There is certainly either a corruption of the text, or a wrong number in the statement of the height of the porch, 120 cubits; for a front 120 cubits high to a house only thirty cubits high could not be called אוּלם; it would have been a מגדּל, a tower. It cannot with certainty be determined whether we should read twenty or thirty cubits; see in 1Ki 6:3. He overlaid it (the porch) with pure gold; cf. 1Ki 6:21.

Verses 5-7

The interior of the holy place. - 2Ch 3:5. The “great house,” i.e., the large apartment of the house, the holy place, he wainscotted with cypresses, and overlaid it with good gold, and carved thereon palms and garlands. חפּה from חפה, to cover, cover over, alternates with the synonymous צפּה in the signification to coat or overlay with wood and gold. תּמּרים .dlo as in Eze 41:18, for תּמּרות, 1Ki 6:29, 1Ki 6:35, are artificial palms as wall ornaments. שׁרשׁרות are in Exo 28:14 small scroll-formed chains of gold wire, here spiral chain-like decorations on the walls, garlands of flowers carved on the wainscot, as we learn from 1Ki 6:18.

Verses 6-7

And he garnished the house with precious stones for ornament (of the inner sides of the walls); cf. 1Ch 29:2, on which Bähr on 1Ki 6:7 appositely remarks, that the ornamenting of the walls with precious stones is very easily credible, since among the things which Solomon brought in quantity from Ophir they are expressly mentioned (1Ki 10:11), and it was a common custom in the East so to employ them in buildings and in vessels; cf. Symbolik des mos. Cult. i. S. 280, 294, 297. The gold was from פּרוים. This, the name of a place rich in gold, does not elsewhere occur, and has not as yet been satisfactorily explained. Gesen. with Wilson compares the Sanscrit parvam, the first, foremost, and takes it to be the name of the foremost, i.e., eastern regions; others hold the word to be the name of some city in southern or eastern Arabia, whence Indian gold was brought to Palestine. - In 2Ch 3:7 the garnishing of the house with gold is more exactly and completely described. He garnished the house, the beams (of the roof), the thresholds (of the doors), and its walls and its doors with gold, and carved cherubs on the walls. For details as to the internal garnishing, decoration, and gilding of the house, see 1Ki 6:18, 1Ki 6:29, and 1Ki 6:30, and for the doors, 1Ki 6:32-35.

Verses 8-9

2Ch 3:8-9The most holy place, with the figures of the cherubim and the veil; cf. 1Ki 6:19-28. - The length of the most holy place in front of the breadth of the house, twenty cubits, consequently measured in the same way as the porch (2Ch 3:4); the breadth, i.e., the depth of it, also twenty cubits. The height, which was the same (1Ki 6:20), is not stated; but instead of that we have the weight of the gold which was used for the gilding, which is omitted in 1 Kings 6, viz., 600 talents for the overlaying of the walls, and 50 shekels for the nails to fasten the sheet gold on the wainscotting. He covered the upper chambers of the most holy place also with gold; see 1Ch 28:11. This is not noticed in 1 Kings 6.

Verses 10-13

The figures of the cherubim are called צעצעים מעשׂה, sculpture work. The ἁπ. λεγ.. צעצעים comes from צוּע, Arab. ṣâǵ, formavit, finxit, and signifies sculptures. The plur. יצפּוּ, “they overlaid them,” is indefinite. The length of the wings was five cubits, and the four outspread wings extended across the whole width of the most holy place from one wall to the other. The repetition of the clauses האהר הכּרוּב...האהד כּנף (2Ch 3:11, 2Ch 3:12) has a distributive force: the top of one wing of each cherub reached the wall of the house, that of the other wing reached the wing of the other cherub standing by. In the repetition the masc. מגּיע alternates with the fem. מגּעת, being construed in a freer way as the principal gender with the fem. כּנף, and also with דּבקה, adhaerebat, in the last clause. - In 2Ch 3:12 Bertheau would strike out the word כּנפי because it does not suit פּרשׂים, which occurs in 1Ch 28:17; 2Ch 5:8; 1Ki 8:7, in the transitive signification, “to stretch out the wings.” But nothing is gained by that, for we must then supply the erased word after פּרשׂים again. And, moreover, the succeeding clause is introduced by והם, just because in the first clause the wings, and not the cherubim, were the subject. We hold the text to be correct, and translate: “the wings of these cherubim were, for they stretched them out, twenty cubits.” והם refers to הכּרוּבים. They stood upon their feet, consequently upright, and were, according to 1Ki 6:26, ten cubits high. “And their faces towards the house,” i.e., turned towards the holy place, not having their faces turned towards each other, as was the case with the cherubim upon the Capporeth (Exo 25:20).

Verse 14

The veil between the holy place and the most holy, not mentioned in 1Ki 6:21, was made of the same materials and colours as the veil on the tabernacle, and was inwoven with similar cherub figures; cf. Exo 26:31. וּבוּץ כּרמיל as in 2Ch 2:13.   עלה על, to bring upon; an indefinite expression for: to weave into the material.

Verse 15

2Ch 3:15The two brazen pillars before the house, i.e., before the porch, whose form is more accurately described in 1Ki 7:15-22. The height of it is here given at thirty-five cubits, while, according to 1Ki 7:15; 2Ki 25:17; Jer 52:21, it was only eighteen cubits. The number thirty-five has arisen by confounding יח = 18 with לה = 35; see on 1Ki 7:16. הצּפת (ἁπ. λεγ.) from צפה, overlay, cover, is the hood of the pillar, i.e., the capital, called in 1Ki 7:16. כּתרת, crown, capital, five cubits high, as in 1Ki 7:16.

Verse 16

2Ch 3:16 “And he made little chains on the collar (Halsreife), and put it on the top of the pillars, and made 100 pomegranates, and put them on the chains.” In the first clause of this verse, בּדּביר, “in (on) the most holy place,” has no meaning, for the most holy place is not here being discussed, but the pillars before the porch, or rather an ornament on the capital of these pillars. We must not therefore think of chains in the most holy place, which extended thence out to the pillars, as the Syriac and Arabic seem to have done, paraphrasing as they do: chains of fifty cubits (i.e., the length of the holy place and the porch). According to 1Ki 7:17-20 and 1Ki 7:41., compared with 2Ch 4:12-13, each capital consisted of two parts. The lower part was a circumvolution (Wulst) covered with chain-like net-work, one cubit high, with a setting of carved pomegranates one row above and one row below. The upper part, or that which formed the crown of the capital, was four cubits high, and carved in the form of an open lily-calyx. In our verse it is the lower part of the capital, the circumvolution, with the chain net-work and the pomegranates, which is spoken of. From this, Bertheau concludes that דּביר must signify the same as the more usual שׂבכה, viz., “the lattice-work which was set about the top of the pillars, and served to fasten the pomegranates,” and that bdbyr has arisen out of בּרביד by a transposition of the letters. בּרביד (chains) should be read here. This conjecture so decidedly commends itself, that we regard it as certainly correct, since רביד denotes in Gen 41:42; Eze 16:11, a necklace, and so may easily denote also a ring or hoop; but we cannot adopt the translation “chains on a ring,” nor the idea that the שׂבכה, since it surrounded the head of the pillars as a girdle or broad ring, is called the ring of the pillars. For this idea does not agree with the translation “chains in a ring,” even when they are conceived of as “chain-like ornaments, which could scarcely otherwise be made visible on the ring than by open work.” Then the chain-like decorations were not, as Bertheau thinks, on the upper and under border of the ring, but formed a net-work which surrounded the lower part of the capital of the pillar like a ring, as though a necklace had been drawn round it. רביד consequently is not the same as שׂבכה, but rather corresponds to that part of the capital which is called גּלּה (גּלּות) in 1Ki 7:14; for the שׂבכות served to cover the גּלּות, and were consequently placed on or over the גּלּות, as the pomegranates were on the chains or woven work. הגּלּה denotes the curve, the circumvolution, which is in 1Ki 7:20 called הבּטן, a broad-arched band, bulging towards the middle, which formed the lower part of the capital. This arched part of the capital the author of the Chronicle calls רביד, ring or collar, because it may be regarded as the neck ornament of the head of the pillar, in contrast to the upper part of the capital, that consisted in lily-work, i.e., the ball wrought into the form of an open lily-calyx (כּתרת( xylac-).

Verse 17

As to the position of the pillars, and their names, see on 1Ki 7:21.

Chap. 4

Verse 1

2Ch 4:1 2Ch 4:1-6. The copper furniture of the court. 2Ch 4:1. The altar of burnt-offering. Its preparation is passed over in 1 Kings 6 and 7, so that there it is only mentioned incidentally in connection with the consecration of the temple, 1Ki 8:22, 1Ki 8:54, and 1Ki 9:25. It was twenty cubits square (long and broad) and ten cubits high, and constructed on the model of the Mosaic altar of burnt-offering, and probably of brass plates, which enclosed the inner core, consisting of earth and unhewn stones; and if we may judge from Ezekiel's description, Eze 43:13-17, it rose in steps, as it were, so that at each step its extent was smaller; and the measurement of twenty cubits refers only to the lowest scale, while the space at the top, with the hearth, was only twelve cubits square; cf. my Bibl. Archaeol. i. S. 127, with the figure, plate iii. fig. 2.

Verses 2-5

2Ch 4:2-5The brazen sea described as in 1Ki 7:23-26. See the commentary on that passage, and the sketch in my Archaeol. i. plate iii. fig. 1. The differences in substance, such as the occurrence of בּקרים and הבּקר, 2Ch 4:3, instead of פּקעים and הפּקים, and 3000 baths instead of 2000, are probably the result of orthographical errors in the Chronicle. יכיל in 2Ch 4:5 appears superfluous after the preceding מחזיק, and Berth. considers it a gloss which has come from 1 Kings into our text by mistake. But the expression is only pleonastic: “receiving baths, 3000 it held;” and there is no sufficient reason to strike out the words.

Verse 6

2Ch 4:6The ten lavers which, according to 1Ki 7:38, stood upon ten brazen stands, i.e., chests provided with carriage wheels. These stands, the artistic work on which is circumstantially described in 1Ki 7:27-37, are omitted in the Chronicle, because they are merely subordinate parts of the lavers. The size or capacity of the lavers is not stated, only their position on both sides of the temple porch, and the purpose for which they were designed, “to wash therein, viz., the work of the burnt-offering (the flesh of the burnt-offering which was to be burnt upon the altar) they rinsed therein,” being mentioned. For details, see in 1Ki 7:38. and the figure in my Archaol. i. plate iii. fig. 4. Occasion is here taken to mention in a supplementary way the use of the brazen sea.

Verses 7-8

2Ch 4:7-8The golden furniture of the holy place and the courts. These three verses are not found in the parallel narrative 1 Kings 7, where in 1Ki 7:39 the statement as to the position of the brazen sea (2Ch 4:10) follows immediately the statement of the position of the stands with the lavers. The candlesticks and the table of the shew-bread are indeed mentioned in the summary enumeration of the temple furniture, 1Ki 7:48 and 1Ki 7:49, as in the corresponding passage of the Chronicle (2Ch 4:19, 2Ch 4:20) they again occur; and in 1Ki 6:36 and 1Ki 7:12, in the description of the temple building, the inner court is spoken of, but the outer court is not expressly mentioned. No reason can be given for the omission of these verses in 1 Kings 7; but that they have been omitted or have dropped out, may be concluded from the fact that not only do the whole contents of our fourth chapter correspond to the section 1 Kings 7:23-50, but both passages are rounded off by the same concluding verse (2Ch 5:1 and 1Ki 7:51).

Verse 7

He made ten golden candlesticks כּמשׁפּטם, according to their right, i.e., as they should be according to the prescript, or corresponding to the prescript as to the golden candlesticks in the Mosaic sanctuary (Exo 25:31.). משׁפּט is the law established by the Mosaic legislation.

Verse 8

Ten golden tables, corresponding to the ten candlesticks, and, like these, placed five on the right and five on the left side of the holy place. The tables were not intended to bear the candlesticks (Berth.), but for the shew-bread; cf. on 2Ch 4:19 and 1Ch 28:16. And a hundred golden basins, not for the catching and sprinkling of the blood (Berth.), but, as their connection with the tables for the shew-bread shows, wine flagons, or sacrificial vessels for wine libations, probably corresponding to the מנקּיּות on the table of shew-bread in the tabernacle (Exo 25:29). The signification, wine flagons, for מזרקים, is placed beyond a doubt by Amo 6:6.

Verses 9-10

The two courts are not further described. For the court of the priests, see on 1Ki 6:36 and 1Ki 7:12. As to the great or outer court, the only remark made is that it had doors, and its doors, i.e., the folds or leaves of the doors, were overlaid with copper. In 2Ch 4:10 we have a supplementary statement as to the position of the brazen sea, which coincides with 1Ki 7:39; see on the passage. In 2Ch 4:11 the heavier brazen (copper) utensils, belonging to the altar of burnt-offering, are mentioned: סידות, pots for the removal of the ashes; יעים, shovels, to take the ashes out from the altar; and מזרקות, basins to catch and sprinkle the sacrificial blood. This half verse belongs to the preceding, notwithstanding that Huram is mentioned as the maker. This is clear beyond doubt, from the fact that the same utensils are again introduced in the summary catalogue which follows (2Ch 4:16).

Verses 11-18

2Ch 4:11-18Summary catalogue of the temple utensils and furniture. - 2Ch 4:11-18. The brass work wrought by Huram.

Verses 19-22

The golden furniture of the holy place and the gilded doors of the temple. This section is found also in 1Ki 7:40-50. The enumeration of the things wrought in brass coincides to a word, with the exception of trifling linguistic differences and some defects in the text, with 1Ki 7:40-47. In 2Ch 4:12 והכּתרות הגּלּות is the true reading, and we should so read in 1Ki 7:41 also, since the גּלּות, circumvolutions, are to be distinguished from the כּתרות, crowns; see on 2Ch 3:16. In 2Ch 4:14 the first עשׂה is a mistake for עשׂר, the second for עשׂרה, 1Ki 7:43; for the verb עשׂה is not required nor expected, as the accusative depends upon לעשׂות, 2Ch 4:11, while the number cannot be omitted, since it is always given with the other things. In 2Ch 4:16 מזלנות is an orthographic error for מזרקות; cf. 2Ch 4:11 and 1Ki 7:44. ואת־כּל־כּליחם is surprising, for there is no meaning in speaking of the utensils of the utensils enumerated in 2Ch 4:12-16. According to 1Ki 7:45, we should read האלּה כּל־הכּלים את. As to אביו, see on 2Ch 2:12. מרוּק נחשׁת is accusative of the material, of polished brass; and so also ממרט נח,   1Ki 7:45, with a similar signification. In reference to the rest, see the commentary on 1Ki 7:40.

Verses 19-21

In the enumeration of the golden furniture of the holy place, our text diverges somewhat more from 1Ki 7:48-50. On the difference in respect to the tables of the shew-bread, see on 1Ki 7:48. In 2Ch 4:20 the number and position of the candlesticks in the holy place are not stated as they are in 1Ki 7:49, both having been already given in 2Ch 4:7. Instead of that, their use is emphasized: to light them, according to the right, before the most holy place (כּמּשׁפּט as in 2Ch 4:7). As to the decorations and subordinate utensils of the candlesticks, see on 1Ki 7:49. To זהב, 2Ch 4:21 (accus. of the material), is added זהב מכלות הוּא, “that is perfect gold.” מכלה, which occurs only here, is synonymous with מכלל, perfection. This addition seems superfluous, because before and afterwards it is remarked of these vessels that they were of precious gold (סגוּר זהב), and it is consequently omitted by the lxx, perhaps also because מכלות was not intelligible to them. The words, probably, are meant to indicate that even the decorations and the subordinate utensils of the candlesticks (lamps, snuffers, etc.) were of solid gold, and not merely gilded.

Verse 22

2Ch 4:22 מזמּרות, knives, probably used along with the snuffers for the cleansing and trimming of the candlesticks and lamps, are not met with among the utensils of the tabernacle, but are here mentioned (Chr. and Kings), and in 2Ki 12:14 and Jer 52:18, among the temple utensils. Along with the מזרקות, sacrificial vessels (see on 2Ch 4:8), in 1Ch 28:17 מזלנות, forks of gold, are also mentioned, which are not elsewhere spoken of. Among the utensils of the tabernacle we find only מזלגות of brass, flesh-forks, as an appurtenance of the altar of burnt-offering (Exo 27:3; Exo 38:3; Num 4:14; cf. 1Sa 2:13.), which, however, cannot be intended here, because all the utensils here enumerated belonged to the holy place. What purpose the golden forks served cannot be determined, but the mention of golden knives might lead us to presuppose that there would be golden forks as well. That the forks are not mentioned in our verse does not render their existence doubtful, for the enumeration is not complete: e.g., the ספּות,   1Ki 7:50, are also omitted. כּפּות, vessels for the incense, and מחתּות, extinguishers, as in 1Ki 7:50. Instead of דּלתותיו הבּית וּפּתח הבּית , “and as regards the opening (door) of the house, its door-leaves,” in 1Ki 7:50 we have הבּית לדלתות והפּתת, “and the hinges of the door-leaves of the house.” This suggests that פתח is only an orthographical error for פּתת; but then if we take it to be so, we must alter דּלתותיו into לדלתותיו. And, moreover, the expression הבּית פּתת, door-hinges of the house, is strange, as פּות properly denotes a recess or space between, and which renders the above-mentioned conjecture improbable. The author of the Chronicle seems rather himself to have generalized the expression, and emphasizes merely the fact that even the leaves of the doors in the most holy place and on the holy place were of gold; - of course not of solid gold; but they were, as we learn from 2Ch 3:7, overlaid with gold. This interpretation is favoured by the simple זהב being used without the predicate סגוּר. To the sing. פּתח no objection can be made, for the word in its fundamental signification, “opening,” may easily be taken collectively.

Chap. 5

Verse 1

2Ch 5:1 2Ch 5:1 contains the conclusion of the account of the preparation of the sacred utensils as in 1Ki 7:51, and with it also the whole account of the building of the temple is brought to an end. The ו before את־הכּסף and את־הזּהב corresponds to the Lat. et - et, both - and also. As to David's offerings, cf. 1Ch 18:10 and 1Ch 18:11; and on the whole matter, compare also the remarks on 1Ki 7:51.

Verses 2-3

The first part of the celebration was the transfer of the ark from Mount Zion to the temple (2Ch 5:2-14), and in connection with this we have the words in which Solomon celebrates the entry of the Lord into the new temple (2Ch 6:1-11). This section has been already commented on in the remarks on 1 Kings 8:1-21, and we have here, consequently, only to set down briefly those discrepancies between our account and that other, which have any influence upon the meaning. - In 2Ch 5:3 the name of the month, האתנים בּירח (1Ki 8:2), with which the supplementary clause, “that is the seventh month,” is there connected, is omitted, so that we must either change החדשׁ into בּחרשׁ, or supply the name of the month; for the festival is not the seventh month, but was held in that month.

Verses 4-9

Instead of הלויּם, we have in 2 Kings הכּהנים, the priests bare the ark; and since even according to the Chronicle (2Ch 5:7) the priests bare the ark into the holy place, we must understand by הלויּם such Levites were also priests. - In 2Ch 5:5, too the words הלויּם הכּהנים are inexact, and are to be corrected by 1Ki 8:4, והלויּם הכּהנים. For even if the Levitic priests bare the ark and the sacred utensils of the tabernacle into the temple, yet the tabernacle itself (the planks, hangings, and coverings of it) was borne into the temple, to be preserved as a holy relic, not by priests, but only by Levites. The conj. ו before הלוים has probably been omitted only by a copyist, who was thinking of הלוים הכהנים (Jos 3:3; Deu 17:9, Deu 17:18, etc.). - In 2Ch 5:8 ויכסּוּ is an orthographical error for ויּסכּוּ,   1Ki 8:7; cf. 1Ch 28:18; Exo 25:20. - In 2Ch 5:9, too, מן־הארון has probably come into our text only by a copyist's mistake instead of מן־הקּדשׁ   (1Ki 8:8).

Verse 10

2Ch 5:10 נתן אשׁר, who had given, i.e., laid in, is not so exact as שׁם הנּיח אשׁר (1Ki 8:9), but may be justified by a reference to Exo 40:20.

Verse 11

2Ch 5:112Ch 5:11-13 describe the part which the priests and Levitical singers and musicians took in the solemn act of transferring the ark to the temple-a matter entirely passed over in the narrative in 1Ki 8:11, which confines itself to the main transaction. The mention of the priests gives occasion for the remark, 2Ch 5:11, “for all the priests present had sanctified themselves, but the courses were not to be observed,” i.e., the courses of the priests (1 Chron 24) could not be observed. The festival was so great, that not merely the course appointed to perform the service of that week, but also all the courses had sanctified themselves and co-operated in the celebration. In reference to the construction לשׁמור אין, cf. Ew. §321, b.

Verse 12

All the Levitic singers and musicians were also engaged in it, to make the festival glorious by song and instrumental music: “and the Levites, the singers, all of them, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, and their sons and brethren, clad in byssus, with cymbals, psalteries, and harps, stood eastward from the altar, and with them priests to 120, blowing trumpets.” The ל before כּלּם and the following noun is the introductory ל: “as regards.” On the form מחצררים, see on 1Ch 15:24; on these singers and musicians, their clothing, and their instruments, see on 1Ch 15:17-28 and 2Ch 25:1-8.

Verse 13

2Ch 5:132Ch 5:13 runs thus literally: “And it came to pass, as one, regarding the trumpeters and the singers, that they sang with one voice to praise and thank Jahve.” The meaning is: and the trumpeters and singers, together as one man, sang with one voice to praise. כּאחד is placed first for emphasis; stress is laid upon the subject, the trumpeters and singers, by the introductory ל; and היה is construed with the following infinitive (להשׁמיע): it was to sound, to cause to hear, for they were causing to hear, where ל c. infin. is connected with היה, as the participle is elsewhere, to describe the circumstances; cf. Ew. §237. But in order to express very strongly the idea of the unisono of the trumpet-sound, and the singing accompanied by the harp-playing, which lies in כּאחד, אחד קול is added to להשׁמיע. By וגו קול וּכהרים all that was to be said of the song and music is drawn together in the form of a protasis, to which is joined מלא והבּית, the apodosis both of this latter and also of the protasis which was interrupted by the parenthesis in 2Ch 5:11 : “When the priests went forth from the holy place, for...(2Ch 5:11), and when they lifted up the voice with trumpets and with cymbals, and the (other) instruments of song, and with the praise of Jahve, that He is good, that His mercy endureth for ever (cf. 1Ch 16:34), then was the house filled with the cloud of the house of Jahve.” The absence of the article before ענן requires us thus to connect the יהוה בּית at the close of the verse with ענן (stat. constr.), since the indefinite ענן (without the article) is not at all suitable here; for it is not any cloud which is here spoken of, but that which overshadowed the glory of the Lord in the most holy place.

Verse 14

2Ch 5:14 2Ch 5:14, again, agrees with 1Ki 8:6, and has been there commented upon.

Chap. 6

Verses 1-11

The words with which Solomon celebrates this wondrous evidence of the divine favour, entirely coincide with the narrative in 1Ki 8:12-21, except that in 2Ch 6:5. the actual words of Solomon's speech are more completely given than in 1Ki 8:16, where the words, “and I have not chosen a man to be prince over my people Israel, and I have chosen Jerusalem that my name might be there,” are omitted. For the commentary on this address, see on 1Ki 8:12-21.

Verses 12-42

2Ch 6:12-42Solomon's dedicatory prayer likewise corresponds exactly with the account of it given in 1 Kings 8:22-53 till near the end (2Ch 6:40-42), where it takes quite a different turn. Besides this, in the introduction (2Ch 6:13) Solomon's position during the prayer is more accurately described, it being there stated that Solomon had caused a high stage (כּיּור, a basin-like elevation) to be erected, which he ascended, and kneeling, spoke the prayer which follows. This fact is not stated in 1Ki 8:22, and Then. and Berth. conjecture that it has been dropped out of our text only by mistake. Perhaps so, but it may have been passed over by the author of the books of Kings as a point of subordinate importance. On the contents of the prayer, which begins with the joyful confession that the Lord had fulfilled His promise to David in reference to the building of the temple, and proceeds with a request for a further bestowment of the blessing promised to His people, and a supplication that all prayers made to the Lord in the temple may be heard, see the Com. on 1Ki 8:22. The conclusion of the prayer in the Chronicle is different from that in 1 Kings 8. There the last supplication, that the prayers might be heard, is followed by the thought: for they (the Israelites) are Thy people and inheritance; and in the further amplification of this thought the prayer returns to the idea with which it commenced. In the narrative of the Chronicle, on the other hand, the supplications conclude with the general thought (2Ch 6:40): “Now, my God, let, I beseech Thee, Thine eyes be open, and Thine ears attend unto the prayer of this place” (i.e., unto the prayer spoken in this place). There follows, then, the conclusion of the whole prayer - a summons to the Lord (2Ch 6:41.): “And now, Lord God, arise into Thy rest, Thou and the ark of Thy strength; let Thy priests, Lord God, clothe themselves in salvation, and Thy saints rejoice in good! Lord God, turn not away the face of Thine anointed: remember the pious deeds of Thy servant David.” הסדים as in 2Ch 32:32; 2Ch 35:26, and Neh 13:14. On this Thenius remarks, to 1Ki 8:53 : “This conclusion is probably authentic, for there is in the text of the prayer, 1 Kings 8, no special expression of dedication, and this the summons to enter into possession of the temple very fittingly supplies. The whole contents of the conclusion are in perfect correspondence with the situation, and, as to form, nothing better could be desired. It can scarcely be thought an arbitrary addition made by the chronicler for no other reason than that the summons spoken of, if taken literally, is irreconcilable with the entrance of the cloud into the temple, of which he has already given us an account.” Berth. indeed thinks that it does not thence follow that our conclusion is authentic, and considers it more probable that it was introduced because it appeared more suitable, in place of the somewhat obscure words in 1Ki 8:51-53, though not by the author of the Chronicle, and scarcely at an earlier time. The decision on this question can only be arrived at in connection with the question as to the origin of the statements peculiar to the Chronicle contained in 2Ch 7:1-3.
If we consider, in the first place, our verses in themselves, they contain no thought which Solomon might not have spoken, and consequently nothing which would tend to show that they are not authentic. It is true that the phrase קשּׁבות אזניך occurs only here and in 2Ch 7:15, and again in Psa 130:2, and the noun נוּח instead of מנוּחה is found only in Est 9:16-18 in the form נוח; but even if these two expressions be peculiar to the later time, no further conclusion can be drawn from that, than that the author of the Chronicle has here, as often elsewhere, given the thoughts of his authority in the language of his own time. Nor is the relation in which 2Ch 6:41, 2Ch 6:42 stand to Psa 132:8-10 a valid proof of the later composition of the conclusion of our prayer. For (a) it is still a question whether our verses have been borrowed from Ps 132, or the verses of the psalm from our passage; and (b) the period when Psa 138:1-8 was written is so doubtful, that some regard it as a Solomonic psalm, while others place it in the post-exilic period. Neither the one nor the other of these questions can be determined on convincing grounds. The appeal to the fact that the chronicler has compounded the hymn in 1 Chron 15 also out of post-exilic psalms proves nothing, for even in that case it is at least doubtful if that be a correct account of the matter. But the further assertion, that the conclusion (2Ch 6:42) resembles Isa 55:3, and that recollections of this passage may have had some effect also on the conclusion (2Ch 6:41), is undoubtedly erroneous, for דויד חסדי in 2Ch 6:42 has quite a different meaning from that which it has in Isa 55:3. There דּוד חסדי are the favours granted to David by the Lord; in 2Ch 6:42, on the contrary, they are the pious deeds of David, - all that he had done for the raising and advancement of the public worship (see above). The phrase וגו קוּמה, “Arise, O Lord God, into Thy rest,” is modelled on the formula which was spoken when the ark was lifted and when it was set down on the journey through the wilderness, which explains both קוּמה and the use of לנוּחך, which is formed after בּנוּחה, Num 10:36. The call to arise into rest is not inconsistent with the fact that the ark had already been brought into the most holy place, for קוּמה has merely the general signification, “to set oneself to anything.” The idea is, that God would now take the rest to which the throne of His glory had attained, show Himself to His people from this His throne to be the God of salvation, endue His priests, the guardians of His sanctuary, with salvation, and cause the pious to rejoice in His goodness. בטּוב ישׂמחוּ is generalized in Psa 132:9 into ירנּנוּ. פּני פ השׁב, to turn away the face of any one, i.e., to deny the request, cf. 1Ki 2:16.The divine confirmation of the dedication of the temple. - 2Ch 7:1-10. The consecration of the sacrificial service by fire from heaven (2Ch 7:1-3), and the sacrifices and festival of the people (2Ch 7:4-10).

Chap. 7

Verses 1-3

At the conclusion of Solomon's prayer there fell fire from heaven, which devoured the burnt-offering and the thank-offering, and the glory of the Lord filled the house, so that the priests could not enter the house of Jahve. The assembled congregation, when they saw the fire and the glory of the Lord descend, bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped God to praise. Now since this narrative is not found in 1Ki 8:54., and there a speech of Solomon to the whole congregation, in which he thanks God for the fulfilment of His promise, and expresses the desire that the Lord would hear his prayers at all times, and bestow the promised salvation on the people, is communicated, modern criticism has rejected this narrative of the Chronicle as a later unhistorical embellishment of the temple dedication. “If we turn our attention,” says Berth. in agreement with Then., “to 2Ch 5:11-14, and compare 2Ch 5:14 with our second verse, we must maintain that our historian found that there existed two different narratives of the proceedings at the dedication of the temple, and received both into his work. According to the one narrative, the clouds filled the house (1Ki 8:10, cf. 2Ch 5:11-14); and after this was done Solomon uttered the prayer, with the conclusion which we find in 1 Kings 8; according to the other narrative, Solomon uttered the prayer, with the conclusion which we find in Chron., and God thereafter gave the confirmatory signs. Now we can hardly imagine that the course of events was, that the glory of Jahve filled the house (2Ch 5:14); that then Solomon spoke the words and the prayer in 2 Chron 6; that while he uttered the prayer the glory of Jahve again left the house, and then came down in a way manifest to all the people (2Ch 7:3), in order to fill the house for a second time.” Certainly it was not so; but the narrative itself gives no ground for any such representation. Not a word is said in the text of the glory of Jahve having left the temple during Solomon's prayer. The supposed contradiction between 2Ch 5:14 and the account in 2Ch 7:1-3 is founded entirely on a misinterpretation of our verse. The course of events described here was, as the words run, this: Fire came down from heaven upon the sacrifices and devoured them, and the glory of the Lord filled the house; and this is in 2Ch 7:3 more exactly and precisely repeated by the statement that the people saw the fire and the glory of Jahve descend upon the house. According to these plain words, the glory of Jahve descended upon the temple in the fire which came down from heaven. In the heavenly fire which devoured the sacrifices, the assembled congregation saw the glory of the Lord descend upon the temple and fill it. But the filling of the temple by the cloud when the ark was brought in and set in its place (2Ch 5:13) can be without difficulty reconciled with this manifestation of the divine glory in the fire. Just as the manifestation of the gracious divine presence in the temple by a cloud, as its visible vehicle, does not exclude the omnipresence of God or His sitting enthroned in heaven, God's essence not being so confined to the visible vehicle of His gracious presence among His people that He ceases thereby to be enthroned in heaven, and to manifest Himself therefrom; so the revelation of the same God from heaven by a descending fire is not excluded or set aside by the presence of the cloud in the holy place of the temple, and in the most holy. We may consequently quite well represent to ourselves the course of events, by supposing, that while the gracious presence of God enthroned above the cherubim on the ark made itself known in the cloud which filled the temple, or while the cloud filled the interior of the temple, God revealed His glory from heaven, before the eyes of the assembled congregation, in the fire which descended upon the sacrifices, so that the temple was covered or overshadowed by His glory. The parts of this double manifestation of the divine glory are clearly distinguished even in our narrative; for in 2Ch 5:13-14 the cloud which filled the house, as vehicle of the manifestation of the divine glory, and which hindered the priests from standing and serving (in the house, i.e., in the holy place and the most holy), is spoken of; while in our verses, again, it is the glory of God which descended upon the temple in the fire coming down from heaven on the sacrifices, and so filled it that the priests could not enter it, which is noticed.
Since, therefore, the two passages involve no contradiction, the hypothesis of a compounding together of discrepant narratives loses all standing ground; and it only remains to determine the mutual relations of the two narratives, and to answer the question, why the author of the book of Kings has omitted the account of the fire which came down from heaven upon the sacrifices, and the author of the Chronicle the blessing of the congregation (1Ki 8:54-61). From the whole plan and character of the two histories, there can be no doubt that in these accounts we have not a perfect enumeration of all the different occurrences, but only a record of the chief things which were done. The authority made use of by both, however, doubtless contained both the blessing of the congregation (1Ki 8:55-61) and the account of the fire which devoured the sacrifices (2Ch 7:2-3); and probably the latter preceded the blessing spoken by Solomon to the congregation (Kings). In all probability, the fire dame down from heaven immediately after the conclusion of the dedicatory prayer, and devoured the sacrifices lying upon the altar of burnt-offering; and after this had happened, Solomon turned towards the assembled congregation and praised the Lord, because He had given rest to His people, of which the completion of the temple, and the filling of it with the cloud of the divine glory, was a pledge. To record this speech of Solomon to the congregation, falls wholly in with the plan of the book of Kings, in which the prophetic interest, the realization of the divine purpose of grace by the acts and omissions of the kings, is the prominent one; while it did not lie within the scope of his purpose to enter upon a detailed history of the public worship. We should be justified in expecting the fire which devoured the sacrifices to be mentioned in the book of Kings, only if the temple had been first consecrated by this divine act to be the dwelling-place of the gracious presence of God, or a sanctuary of the Lord; but such significance the devouring of the sacrifices by fire coming forth from God did not possess. Jahve consecrated the temple to be the dwelling-place of His name, and the abode of His gracious presence, in proclaiming His presence by the cloud which filled the sanctuary, when the ark was brought into the most holy place. The devouring of the sacrifices upon the altar by fire from heaven was merely the confirmatory sign that the Lord, enthroned above the ark in the temple, accepted, well pleased, the sacrificial service carried on on the altar of this temple; and since the people could draw near to the Lord only with sacrifices before the altar, it was a confirmatory sign that He from His throne would bestow His covenant grace upon those who appeared before him with sacrifices; cf. Lev 9:23. Implicitly, this grace was already secured to the people by God's consecrating the sanctuary to be the throne of His grace by the cloud which filled the temple; and the author of the book of Kings thought it sufficient to mention this sign, and passed over the second, which only served as a confirmation of the first. With the chronicler the case was different; for his plan to portray in detail the glory of the worship of the former time, the divine confirmation of the sacrificial worship, which was to be carried on continually in the temple as the only legitimate place of worship, by fire from heaven, was so important that he could not leave it unmentioned; while the words of blessing spoken by Solomon to the congregation, as being already implicitly contained in the dedicatory prayer, did not appear important enough to be received into his book. For the rest, the sacrifices which the fire from heaven devoured are the sacrifices mentioned in 2Ch 5:6, which the king and the congregation had offered when the ark was borne into the temple. As there was an immense number of these sacrifices, they cannot all have been offered on the altar of burnt-offering, but, like the thank-offerings afterwards brought by Solomon and the congregation, must have been offered on the whole space which had been consecrated in the court for this purpose (2Ch 7:7). This is expressly attested by 2Ch 7:7, for the העלות can only be the sacrifices in 2Ch 5:6, since the sacrifices in 2Ch 7:5 of our chapter were only שׁלמים; cf. 1Ki 8:62.

Verses 4-6

The sacrifices and the festival. After fire from heaven had devoured the sacrifices, and Solomon had praised the Lord for the fulfilment of His word, and sought for the congregation the further bestowal of the divine blessing (1Ki 8:54-61), the dedication of the temple was concluded by a great thank-offering, of which we have in 2Ch 7:5, 2Ch 7:6 an account which completely agrees with 1Ki 8:62-63. - In 2Ch 7:6 the author of the Chr. again makes express mention of the singing and playing of the Levites when these offerings were presented. In the performance of this sacrificial act the priests stood על־משׁמרותם, in their stations; but that does not signify separated according to their divisions (Berth.), but in officiis suis (Vulg.), i.e., ordines suos et functiones suas a Davide 1 Chron. 2Ch 24:7. institutas servarunt (Ramb.); see on Num 8:26. The Levites with the instruments of song of Jahve, which David had made, i.e., with the instruments invented and appointed by David for song to the praise of the Lord. בּידם דויד בּהלּל, not hymnos David canentes per manus suas (Vulg.), taking דויד הלּל for the praising appointed by David, which by the hands of the Levites, i.e., was performed by the hands of the Levites (Berth.), but literally: when David sang praise by their hand (i.e., their service). This clause seems to be added to the relative clause, “which king David had made,” for nearer definition, and to signify that the Levites used the same instruments which David had introduced when he praised God by the playing of the Levites. The form מחצצרים as in 1Ch 15:24.

Verses 7-10

2Ch 7:7-10 2Ch 7:7 contains a supplementary remark, and the ו relat. expresses only the connection of the thought, and the verb is to be translated in English by the pluperfect. For the rest, compare on 2Ch 7:4-10 the commentary on 1Ki 8:62-66.

Verses 11-22

The Lord's answer to Solomon's dedicatory prayer. Cf. 1Ki 9:1-9. The general contents, and the order of the thoughts in the divine answer in the two texts, agree, but in the Chronicle individual thoughts are further expounded than in the book of Kings, and expressions are here and there made clear. The second clause of 2Ch 7:11 is an instance of this, where “and all the desire of Solomon, which he was pleased to do,” is represented by “and all that came into Solomon's heart, to make in the house of the Lord and in his own house, he prosperously effected.” Everything else is explained in the Com. on 1 Kings 9.

Chap. 8

Verse 1

Solomon's City-Building, Statute Labour, Arrangement of Public Worship, and Nautical Undertakings - 2 Chronicles 8

The building of the temple was the most important work of Solomon's reign, as compared with which all the other undertakings of the king fall into the background; and these are consequently only summarily enumerated both in the book of Kings and in the Chronicle. In our chapter, in the first place, we have, (a) the building or completion of various cities, which were of importance partly as strongholds, partly as magazines, for the maintenance of the army necessary for the defence of the kingdom against hostile attacks (2Ch 8:1-6); (b) the arrangement of the statute labour for the execution of all his building works (2Ch 8:7-11); (c) the regulation of the sacrificial service and the public worship (2Ch 8:12-16); and (d) the voyage to Ophir (2Ch 8:17, 2Ch 8:18). All these undertakings are recounted in the same order and in the same aphoristic way in 1 Kings 9:10-28, but with the addition of various notes, which are not found in our narrative; while the Chronicle, again, mentions several not unimportant though subordinate circumstances, which are not found in the book of Kings; whence it is clear that in the two narratives we have merely short and mutually supplementary extracts from a more elaborate description of these matters.
2Ch 8:1 The city-building. - 2Ch 8:1. The date, “at the end of twenty years, when Solomon ... had built,” agrees with that in 1Ki 9:10. The twenty years are to be reckoned from the commencement of the building of the temple, for he had spent seven years in the building of the temple, and thirteen years in that of his palace (1Ki 6:38; 1Ki 7:1).

Verses 2-4

2Ch 8:2-4 2Ch 8:2 must be regarded as the apodosis of 2Ch 8:1, notwithstanding that the object, the cities which ... precedes. The unusual position of the words is the result of the aphoristic character of the notice. As to its relation to the statement 1Ki 9:10-13, see the discussion on that passage. בּנה, 2Ch 8:2, is not to be understood of the fortification of these cities, but of their completion, for, according to 1Ki 9:10, 1Ki 9:13, they were in very bad condition. ויּושׁב, he caused to dwell there, i.e., transplanted Israelites thither, cf. 2Ki 17:6. The account of the cities which Solomon built, i.e., fortified, is introduced (2Ch 8:3) by the important statement, omitted in 1 Kings 9: “Solomon went to Hamath-zobah, and prevailed against it.” על חזק, to be strong upon, that is, prevail against, conquer; cf. 2Ch 27:5. Hamath-zobah is not the city Hamath in Zobah, but, as we learn from 2Ch 8:4, the land or kingdom of Hamath. This did not lie, any more than the city Hamath, in Zobah, but bordered on the kingdom of Zobah: cf. 1Ch 18:3; and as to the position of Zobah, see the Commentary on 2Sa 8:3. In David's time Hamath and Zobah had their own kings; and David conquered them, and made their kingdoms tributary (1Ch 18:3-10). Because they bordered on each other, Hamath and Zobah are here bound together as a nomen compos. עליה יחזק signifies at least this, that these tributary kingdoms had either rebelled against Solomon, or at least had made attempts to do so; which Solomon suppressed, and in order to establish his dominion over them fortified Tadmor, i.e., Palmyra, and all the store cities in the land of Hamath (see on 1Ki 9:18.); for, according to 1Ki 11:23., he had Rezon of Zobah as an enemy during his whole reign; see on that passage.

Verses 5-6

Besides these, he made Upper and Nether Beth-horon (see on 1Ch 7:24) into fortified cities, with walls, gates, and bars. מצור ערי is the second object of ויּבן, and וגו חומות is in apposition to that. Further, he fortified Baalah, in the tribe of Dan, to defend the kingdom against the Philistines, and, according to 1Ki 9:15-17, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer also, - which are omitted here, while in 1Ki 9:17 Upper Beth-horon is omitted, - and store cities, chariot cities, and cavalry cities; see on 1Ki 9:15-19.

Verses 7-8

2Ch 8:7-8On the arrangement of the statute labour, see on 1Ki 9:20-23. - This note is in Chr. abruptly introduced immediately after the preceding. 2Ch 8:7 is an absolute clause: “as regards the whole people, those.” מן־בּניהם (2Ch 8:8) is not partitive: some of their sons; but is only placed before the אשׁר: those of their sons (i.e., of the descendants of the whole Canaanite people) who had remained in the land, whom the Israelites had not exterminated; Solomon made a levy of these for statute labourers. The מן is wanting in 1 Kings, but is not to be struck out here on that account. Much more surprising is the אשׁר after שׂראל מן־בּני, 2Ch 8:9, which is likewise not found in 1 Kings, since the following verb נתן לא is not to be taken relatively, but contains the predicate of the subject contained in the words ישׂ מן־בּני. This אשׁר cannot be otherwise justified than by supposing that it is placed after ישׂ בני מן, as in Psa 69:27 it is placed after the subject of the relative clause, and so stands for ישׂ בני מן בן אשׂר: those who were of the sons of Israel (i.e., Israelites) Solomon did not make ... The preplacing of בּניהם מן in 2Ch 8:8 would naturally suggest that ישׂ בני מן should also precede, in order to bring out sharply the contrast between the sons of the Canaanites and the sons of Israel.

Verses 9-10

2Ch 8:9-10 שׁלישׁיו ושׁרי should be altered into ושׁלישׁיו שׂריו as in 1Ki 9:22, for שׁלישׁים are not chariot combatants, but royal adjutants; see on Exo 14:7 and 2Sa 23:8. Over the statute labourers 250 upper overseers were placed. נציבים שׂרי, chief of the superiors, i.e., chief overseer. The Keth. נציבים, praefecti, is the true reading; cf. 1Ch 18:13; 2Ch 17:2. The Keri has arisen out of 1Ki 9:23. These overseers were Israelites, while in the number 550 (1Ki 9:23) the Israelite and Canaanite upper overseers are both included; see on 2Ch 2:17. בּעם refers to כּל־העם, 2Ch 8:7, and denotes the Canaanite people who remained.

Verse 11

The remark that Solomon caused Pharaoh's daughter, whom he had married (1Ki 3:1), to remove from the city of David into the house which he had built her, i.e., into that part of his newly-built palace which was appointed for the queen, is introduced here, as in 1Ki 9:24, because it belongs to the history of Solomon's buildings, although in the Chronicle it comes in very abruptly, the author not having mentioned Solomon's marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh (1Ki 3:1). The reason given for this change of residence on the part of the Egyptian princess is, that Solomon could not allow her, an Egyptian, to dwell in the palace of King David, which had been sanctified by the reception of the ark, and consequently assigned to her a dwelling in the city of David until he should have finished the building of his palace, in which she might dwell along with him. המּה is, as neuter, used instead of the singular; cf. Ew. §318, b. See also on 1Ki 3:1 and 1Ki 9:24.

Verse 12

2Ch 8:12The sacrificial service in the new temple. Cf. 1Ki 9:25, where it is merely briefly recorded that Solomon offered sacrifices three times a year on the altar built by him to the Lord. In our verses we have a detailed account of it. אז, at that time, scil. when the temple building had been finished and the temple dedicated (cf. 2Ch 8:1), Solomon offered burnt-offerings upon the altar which he had built before the porch of the temple. He no longer now sacrifices upon the altar of the tabernacle at Gibeon, as in the beginning of his reign (2Ch 1:3.).

Verse 13

2Ch 8:13 “Even sacrificing at the daily rate, according to the direction of Moses.” These words give a supplementary and closer definition of the sacrificing in the form of an explanatory subordinate clause, which is interpolated in the principal sentence. For the following words וגו לשּׁבּתות belong to the principal sentence (2Ch 8:12): he offered sacrifices ... on the sabbaths, the new moons, etc. The ו before בּדבר is explicative, and that = viz.; and the infin. להעלות, according to the later usage, instead of infin. absol.; cf. Ew. §280, d. The preposition בּ (before דּבר) is the so-called b essentiae: consisting in the daily (rate) to sacrifice (this); cf. Ew. §299, b. The daily rate, i.e., that which was prescribed in the law of Moses for each day, cf. Lev 23:37. למּועדות is further explained by the succeeding clause: on the three chief festivals of the year.

Verse 14

He ordered the temple service, also, entirely according to the arrangement introduced by David as to the service of the priests and Levites. He appointed, according to the ordinance of David his father, i.e., according to the ordinance established by David, the classes of the priests (see on 1 Chron 24) to that service, and the Levites to their stations (משׁמרות as in 2Ch 7:6), to praise (cf. 1 Chron 25), and to serve before the priests (1Ch 23:28.), according to that which was appointed for every day, and the doorkeepers according to their courses, etc. (see 1 Chron 27:1-19). With the last words cf. Neh 12:24.

Verses 15-16

This arrangement was faithfully observed by the priests and Levites. The verb סוּר is here construed c. accus. in the signification to transgress a command (cf. Ew. §282, a), and it is therefore not necessary to alter מצות into ממּצות. על־הכּהנים depends upon מצות: the king's command concerning the priests and the Levites, i.e., that which David commanded them. וגו לכל־דּבר, in regard to all things, and especially also in regard to the treasures; cf. 1Ch 26:20-28. - With 2Ch 8:16 the account of what Solomon did for the public worship is concluded: “Now all the work of Solomon was prepared until the (this) day, the foundation of the house of Jahve until its completion; the house of Jahve was finished.” מלאכת is explained by מוּסד. היּום is the day on which, after the consecration of the completed temple, the regular public worship was commenced in it, which doubtless was done immediately after the dedication of the temple. Only when the regular worship according to the law of Moses, and with the arrangements as to the service of the priests and Levites established by David, had been commenced, was Solomon's work in connection with the temple completed, and the house of God שׁלם, integer, perfect in all its parts, as it should be. The last clause, בית י שׁלם, is connected rhetorically with what precedes without the conjunction, and is not to be regarded as a subscription, “with which the historian concludes the whole narrative commencing with 2Ch 2:1” (Berth.); for שׁלם does not signify “ended,” or to be at an end, but to be set thoroughly (perfectly) in order.

Verses 17-18

2Ch 8:17-18Voyage to Ophir. Cf. 1Ki 9:26-28, and the commentary on that passage, where we have discussed the divergences of our narrative, and have also come to the conclusion that Ophir is not to be sought in India, but in Southern Arabia. By אז the date of this voyage is made to fall in the period after the building of the temple and the palace, i.e., in the second half of Solomon's reign.

Chap. 9

Verses 1-12

2Ch 9:1-12The visit of the queen of Sheba. Cf. 1Ki 10:1-13. - This event is narrated as a practical proof of Solomon's extraordinary wisdom. The narrative agrees so exactly in both texts, with the exception of some few quite unimportant differences, that we must regard them as literal extracts from an original document which they have used in common. For the commentary on this section, see on 1Ki 10:1-13.

Verses 13-21

Solomon's revenue in gold, and the use he made of it. Cf. 1Ki 10:14-22, and the commentary there on this section, which is identical in both narratives, with the exception of some trifling differences. Before מביאים והסּחרים the relative pronoun is to be supplied: “and what the merchants brought.” As to the derivation of the word פּחות, which comes from the Aramaic form פּחה, governor (2Ch 9:14), see on Hag 1:1. - תּרשׁישׁ הלכות אניּות, in 2Ch 9:21, ships going to Tarshish, is an erroneous paraphrase of תּרשׁישׁ אניּות, Tarshish-ships, i.e., ships built for long sea voyages; for the fleet did not go to Tartessus in Spain, but to Ophir in Southern Arabia (see on 1Ki 9:26.). All the rest has been explained in the commentary on 1 Kings 10.

Verses 22-24

In 2Ch 9:22-28, all that remained to be said of Solomon's royal glory, his riches, his wisdom, and his revenues, is in conclusion briefly summed up, as in 1Ki 10:23-29. From 2Ch 9:25 onwards, the account given in the Chronicle diverges from that in 1Ki 10:26., in so far that what is narrated in 1Ki 10:26-28 concerning Solomon's chariots and horses, and his trade with Egypt in horses, is here partly replaced by statements similar in import to those in 1 Kings 5, because the former matters had been already treated of in Chr. 2Ch 1:14-17.

Verses 25-28

2Ch 9:25-28 2Ch 9:25 does not correspond to the passage 1Ki 10:26, but in contents and language agrees with 1Ki 5:6, and 2Ch 9:26 with 1Ki 5:1. Only the general estimate of Solomon's riches in gold and silver, in 2Ch 9:27, repeated from 2Ch 1:15, corresponds to 1Ki 10:27. Finally, in 2Ch 9:28 the whole description is rounded off; all that has already been said in 2Ch 1:16, 2Ch 1:17 as to the trade in horses with Egypt (1Ki 10:28-29) being drawn together into one general statement.

Verse 29

Conclusion of Solomon's history. - 2Ch 9:29. Sources; see the introduction.

Verses 30-31

The length of his reign, his death and burial, and his successor, as in 1Ki 11:42.

Chap. 10

Verses 1-19

IV. The History of the Kingdom of Judah Until Its Fall - 2 Chronicles 10-36.

After giving an account of the revolt of the ten tribes of Israel from the divinely chosen royal house of David (2 Chron 10), the author of the Chronicle narrates the history of the kingdom of Judah - to which he confines himself, to the exclusion of the history of the kingdom of the ten tribes - at much greater length than the author of the books of Kings has done. This latter portrays the development of both kingdoms, but treats only very briefly of the history of the kingdom of Judah, especially under its first rulers, and characterizes the attitude of the kings and people of Judah to the kingdom of Israel and to the Lord only in the most general way. The author of the Chronicle, on the other hand, depicts the development of Judah under Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, and Jehoshaphat much more thoroughly, by communicating a considerable number of events which are omitted in the book of Kings. As we have already proved, the purpose of the chronicler was to show, according to the varying attitude of the kings of the house of David to the Lord and to His law, how, on the one hand, God rewarded the fidelity of the kings and of the people to His covenant with prosperity and blessing, and furnished to the kingdom of Judah, in war with its enemies, power which secured the victory; and how, on the other, He took vengeance for every revolt of the kings and people, and for every fall into idolatry and superstition, by humiliations and awful judgments. And more especially from the times of the godless kings Ahaz and Manasseh does our author do this, pointing out how God suffered the people to fall ever deeper into feebleness, and dependence upon the heathen world powers, until finally, when the efforts of the pious kings Hezekiah and Josiah to bring back the people, sunk as they were in idolatry and moral corruption, to the God of their fathers and to His service failed to bring about any permanent repentance and reformation, He cast forth Judah also from His presence, and gave over Jerusalem and the temple to destruction by the Chaldeans, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah to be led away into exile to Babylon.
2Ch 10:1-19

This event is narrated in our chapter, except in so far as a few unessential differences in form are concerned, exactly as we have it in 1 Kings 12:1-19; so that we may refer for the exposition of it to the commentary on 1 Kings 12, where we have both treated the contents of this chapter, and have also discussed the deeper and more latent causes of this event, so important in its consequences. Rehoboam's Reign - 2 Chronicles 11-12
When the ten tribes had renounced their allegiance to Rehoboam the son of Solomon, and had made Jeroboam their king (1Ki 12:20), Rehoboam wished to compel them by force of arms again to submit to him, and made for this purpose a levy of all the men capable of bearing arms in Judah and Benjamin. But the prophet Shemaiah commanded him, in the name of the Lord, to desist from making war upon the Israelites, they being brethren, and Rehoboam abandoned his purpose (2Ch 11:1-4, cf. 1Ki 12:21-24), and began to establish his dominion over Judah and Benjamin. His kingdom, moreover, was increased in power by the immigration of the priests and Levites, whom Jeroboam had expelled from the priesthood, and also of many God-fearing Israelites out of the ten tribes, to Judah (2Ch 11:13-17). Rehoboam also set his family affairs in order, by nominating from among his many sons, whom his wives had borne to him, Abijah to be his successor on the throne, and making provision for the others in different parts of the country (2Ch 11:18-23). But when he had established his royal authority, he forsook the law of Jahve, and was punished for it by the inroad of the Egyptian king Shishak, who marched through his land with a numerous host, took Jerusalem, and plundered the palace and the temple (2Ch 12:1-11), but without wholly ruining Judah; and Rehoboam was king until his death, and his son succeeded him on the throne (2Ch 11:12-16).
The order in which these events are narrated is not chronological; they are rather grouped together according to their similarities. As Rehoboam began even in the third year of his reign to forsake the law of God, and King Shishak made war upon Judah as early as in his fifth year, the building of the fortresses may have been begun in the first three or four years, but cannot have been ended then; still less can the sons of Rehoboam have been provided for in the time before Shishak's inroad.

Chap. 11

Verses 1-4

2Ch 11:1-4Rehoboam's attitude to the ten rebel tribes. Cf. 1Ki 12:21-24. - Rehoboam's purpose, to subdue these tribes by force of arms, and bring them again under his dominion, and the abandonment of this purpose in consequence of the command of the prophet Shemaiah, belong in a certain measure to the history of the revolt of the ten tribes from the house of David; for the revolt only became an accomplished fact when the prophet Shemaiah proclaimed in the name of the Lord that the matter was from the Lord. 2Ch 11:3. Of Jahve was the thing done; He had ordained the revolt as a chastisement of the seed of David for walking no more in His ways. Solomon had, by allowing himself to be seduced by his many foreign wives into departing from the Lord, exposed himself to the divine displeasure, and his successor Rehoboam increased the guilt by his impolitic treatment of the tribes dissatisfied with Solomon's rule, and had, if not brought about the revolt, yet hastened it; but yet the conduct of these tribes was not thereby justified. Their demand that the burdens laid upon them by Solomon should be lightened, flowed from impure and godless motives, and at bottom had its root in discontent with the theocratic rule of the house of David (see on 1Ki 12:21.). The expression, “to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin,” is deeper than “the whole house of Judah and Benjamin and the remnant of the people,” i.e., those belonging to the other tribes who were dwelling in the tribal domains of Judah and Benjamin (1Ki 12:23); for it characterizes all who had remained true to the house of David as Israel, i.e., those who walked in the footsteps of their progenitor Israel (Jacob).

Verse 5

2Ch 11:5Rehoboam's measures for the fortifying of his kingdom. - To defend his kingdom against hostile attacks, Rehoboam built cities for defence in Judah. The sing. למצור is used, because the building of cities served for the defence of the kingdom. Judah is the name of the kingdom, for the fifteen fenced cities enumerated in the following verses were situated in the tribal domains of both Benjamin and Judah.

Verse 6

In Judah lay Bethlehem, a small city mentioned as early as in Jacob's time (Gen 35:19), two hours south of Jerusalem, the birthplace of David and of Christ (Mic 5:1; Mat 2:5, Mat 2:11), now Beit-Lahm; see on Jos 15:59. Etam is not the place bearing the same name which is spoken of in 1Ch 4:32 and Jdg 15:8, and mentioned in the Talmud as the place where, near Solomon's Pools, the aqueduct which supplied Jerusalem with water commenced (cf. Robins. Pal. sub voce; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. S. 84ff., 855ff.);^[3] nor is it to be looked for, as Robins. loc. cit., and New Bibl. Researches, maintains, in the present village Urtâs (Artâs), for it has been identified by Tobl., dritte Wand. S. 89, with Ain Attân, a valley south-west from Artâs. Not only does the name Attân correspond more than Artâs with Etam, but from it the water is conducted to Jerusalem, while according to Tobler's thorough conviction it could not have been brought from Artâs. Tekoa, now Tekua, on the summit of a hill covered with ancient ruins, two hours south of Bethlehem; see on Jos 15:59.

Verse 7

Beth-zur was situated where the ruin Beth-Sur now stands, midway between Urtâs and Hebron; see on Jos 15:58. Shoko, the present Shuweike in Wady Sumt, 3 1/2 hours south-west from Jerusalem; see on Jos 15:35. Adullam, in Jos 15:35 included among the cities of the hill country, reckoned part of the lowland (Shephelah), i.e., the slope of the hills, has not yet been discovered. Tobler, dritte Wand. S. 151, conjectures that it is identical with the present Dula, about eight miles to the east of Beit-Jibrin; but this can hardly be correct (see against it, Arnold in Herzog's Realenc. xiv. S. 723. It is much more probable that its site was that of the present Deir Dubban, two hours to the north of Beit-Jibrin; see on Jos 12:15.

Verse 8

Gath, a royal city of the Philistines, which was first made subject to the Israelites by David (1Ch 18:1), and was under Solomon the seat of its own king, who was subject to the Israelite king (1Ki 2:39), has not yet been certainly discovered; see on Jos 13:3.^[4]
Mareshah, the city Marissa, on the road from Hebron to the land of the Philistines, was at a later time very important, and is not represented by the ruin Marash, twenty-four minutes to the south of Beit-Jibrin (Eleutheropolis); see on Jos 15:44, and Tobl. dritte Wand. S. 129, 142f. Ziph is probably the Ziph mentioned in Jos 15:55, in the hill country of Judah, of which ruins yet remain on the hill Ziph, about an hour and a quarter south-east of Hebron; see on Jos 15:55. C. v. Raumer thinks, on the contrary, Pal. S. 222, Anm. 249, that our Ziph, as it is mentioned along with Mareshah and other cities of the lowland, cannot be identified with either of the Ziphs mentioned in Jos 15:24 and Jos 15:55, but is probably Achzib in the lowland mentioned along with Mareshah, Jos 15:44; but this is very improbable.

Verse 9

Adoraim (Ἂδωραΐ́μ in Joseph. Antt. viii. 10. 1), met with in 1 Macc. 13:20 as an Idumean city, Ἄδωρα, and so also frequently in Josephus, was taken by Hyrcanus, and rebuilt by Gabinius (Jos. Antt. xiii. 15. 4, and xiv. 5. 3) under the name Δῶρα, and often spoken of along with Marissa (s. Reland, Palaest. p. 547). Robinson (Pal. sub voce) has identified it with the present Dûra, a village about 7 1/2 miles to the westward of Hebron. Lachish, situated in the lowland of Judah, as we learn from Jos 15:39, is probably the present Um Lakis, on the road from Gaza to Beit-Jibrin and Hebron, to the left hand, seven hours to the west of Beit-Jibrin, on a circular height covered with ancient walls and marble fragments, and overgrown with thistles and bushes; see on Jos 10:3, and Pressel in Herz.'s Realenc. viii. S. 157f. Azekah, situated in the neighbourhood of Shoco (2Ch 11:7), and, according to 1Sa 17:1, in an oblique direction near Ephes-dammim, i.e., Damûm, one hour east to the south of Beit-Nettif,^[5] has not been re-discovered; see on Jos 10:10.

Verse 10

Zorah, Samson's birthplace, is represented by the ruin Sura, at the south-west end of the ridge, which encloses the Wady es Surar on the north; see on Jos 15:33. To the north of that again lay Ajalon, now the village Jâlo, on the verge of the plain Merj ibn Omeir, four leagues to the west of Gibeon; see on Jos 10:12 and Jos 19:42. Finally, Hebron, the ancient city of the patriarchs, now called el Khalil (The friend of God, i.e., Abraham); see on Gen 23:2. All these fenced cities lay in the tribal domain of Judah, with the exception of Zorah and Ajalon, which were assigned to the tribe of Dan (Jos 19:41.). These two were probably afterwards, in the time of the judges, when a part of the Danites emigrated from Zorah and Eshtaol to the north of Palestine (Jdg 18:1), taken possession of by Benjamites, and were afterwards reckoned to the land of Benjamin, and are here named as cities which Rehoboam fortified in Benjamin. If we glance for a moment at the geographical position of the whole fifteen cities, we see that they lay partly to the south of Jerusalem, on the road which went by Hebron to Beersheba and Egypt, partly on the western slopes of the hill country of Judah, on the road by Beit-Jibrin to Gaza, while only a few lay to the north of this road towards the Philistine plain, and there were none to the north to defend the kingdom against invasions from that side. “Rehoboam seems, therefore, to have had much more apprehension of an attack from the south and west, i.e., from the Egyptians, than of a war with the northern kingdom” (Berth.). Hence we may conclude that Rehoboam fortified these cities only after the inroad of the Egyptian king Shishak.

Verses 11-12

2Ch 11:11-12 “And he made strong the fortresses, and put captains in them,” etc.; i.e., he increased their strength by placing them in a thoroughly efficient condition to defend themselves against attacks, appointing commandants (נגידים), provisioning them, and (2Ch 11:12) laying up stores of all kinds of arms. In this way he made them exceedingly strong. The last clause, 2Ch 11:12, “And there were to him Judah and Benjamin,” corresponds to the statement, 2Ch 10:19, that Israel revolted from the house of David, and forms the conclusion of the account (vv. 1-17a) of that which Rehoboam did to establish his power and consolidate his kingdom. There follows hereupon, in 2Ch 11:13-17, the account of the internal spiritual strengthening of the kingdom of Judah by the migration of the priests and Levites, and many pious worshippers of Jahve out of all the tribes, to the kingdom of Judah.

Verses 13-14

The priests and Levites in all Israel went over to him out of their whole domain. על התיצּב, to present oneself before any one, to await his commands, cf. Zec 6:5; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; here in the signification to place oneself at another's disposal, i.e., to go over to one. The suffix in גּבוּלם refers to “all Israel.” For - this was the motive of their migration, 2Ch 11:14 -the Levites (in the wider signification of the word, including the priests) forsook their territory and their possessions, i.e., the cities assigned to them, with the pasture lands for their cattle (Num 35:1-8), scil. in the domain of the ten tribes; “for Jeroboam and his sons had driven them out from the priesthood of Jahve.” To prevent his subjects from visiting the temple at Jerusalem, which he feared might ultimately cause the people to return to the house of David, Jeroboam had erected his own places of worship for his kingdom in Bethel and Dan, where Jahve was worshipped in the ox images (the golden calves), and had appointed, not the Levites, but men from the body of the people, to be priests in these so-called sanctuaries (1Ki 12:26-31), consecrated by himself. By these innovations not only the priests and Levites, who would not recognise this unlawful image-worship, were compelled to migrate to Judah and Jerusalem, but also the pious worshippers of the Lord, who would not renounce the temple worship which had been consecrated by God Himself. All Jeroboam's successors held firmly by this calf-worship introduced by him, and consequently the driving out of the priests and Levites is here said to have been the act of Jeroboam and his sons. By his sons are meant Jeroboam's successors on the throne, without respect to the fact that of Jeroboam's own sons only Nadab reached the throne, and that his dynasty terminated with him; for in this matter all the kings of Israel walked in the footsteps of Jeroboam.

Verse 15

And had ordained him priests for the high places. ויּעמד־לו is a continuation of הזניחם כּי, 2Ch 11:14. בּמות are the places of worship which were erected by Jeroboam for the image-worship, called in 1Ki 12:31 בּמות בּית; see on that passage. The gods worshipped in these houses in high places the author of the Chronicle calls שׂעירים from their nature, and עגלים from their form. The word שׂעירים is taken from Lev 17:7, and signifies demons, so named from the Egyptian idolatry, in which the worship of goats, of Pan (Mendes), who was always represented in the form of a goat, occupied a prominent place; see on Lev 17:7. For further details as to the עגלים, see on 1Ki 12:28.

Verse 16

2Ch 11:16 אחריהם, after them, i.e., following after the priests and Levites. With את־לבבם הנּתנים, who turned their hearts thereto, cf. 1Ch 22:19. They went to Jerusalem to sacrifice there; i.e., as we learn from the context, not merely to offer sacrifices, but also to remain in the kingdom of Judah.

Verse 17

These immigrants - priests, Levites, and pious worshippers of Jahve-made the kingdom of Judah strong, by strengthening the religious foundation on which the kingdom was founded, and made Rehoboam strong three years, so that they (king and people) walked in the way of David and Solomon. The strengthening lasted only three years-only while the opposition to Jeroboam's action in the matter of religion was kept alive by the emigration of the pious people from the ten tribes. What occurred after these three years is narrated only in 2 Chron 12. - Here there follows, in

Verses 18-19

2Ch 11:18-19 2Ch 11:18-23, information as to Rehoboam's family relationships. - 2Ch 11:18. Instead of בּן we must read, with the Keri, many MSS, lxx, and Vulg., בּת: Mahalath the daughter of Jerimoth, the son of David. Among the sons of David (1Ch 3:1-8) no Jerimoth is found. If this name be not another form of יתרעם,   1Ch 3:3, Jerimoth must have been a son of one of David's concubines. Before the name אביחיל, ו must have been dropped out, and is to be supplied; so that Mahalath's father and mother are both named: the daughter of Jerimoth the son of David, and Abihail the daughter of Eliab the son of Jesse, i.e., David's eldest brother (1Ch 2:13; 1Sa 17:13). For Abihail cannot be held to be a second wife of Rehoboam, because 2Ch 11:19, “and she bore,” and 2Ch 11:20, “and after her,” show that in 2Ch 11:18 only one wife is named. She bare him three sons, whose names occur only here (2Ch 11:19).

Verse 20

Maachah the daughter, i.e., the granddaughter, of Absalom; for she cannot have been Absalom's daughter, because Absalom, according to 2Sa 14:27, had only one daughter, Tamar by name, who must have been fifty years old at Solomon's death. According to 2Sa 18:18, Absalom left no son; Maachah therefore can only be a daughter of Tamar, who, according to 2Ch 13:2, was married to Uriel of Gibeah: see on 1Ki 15:2. Abijah, the oldest son of Maachah, whom his father nominated his successor (2Ch 11:22 and 2Ch 12:16), is called in the book of Kings constantly Abijam, the original form of the name, which was afterwards weakened into Abijah.

Verses 21-22

Only these wives with their children are mentioned by name, though besides these Rehoboam had a number of wives, 18 wives and 60 (according to Josephus, 30) concubines, who bore him twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters. Rehoboam trod in his father's footsteps in this not quite praise-worthy point. The eldest son of Maachah he made head (לראשׁ), i.e., prince, among his brethren; להמליכו כּי, for to make him king, scil. was his intention. The infin. with ל is here used in the swiftness of speech in loose connection to state with what further purpose he had appointed him נגיד; cf. Ew. §351, c, at the end.

Verse 23

And he did wisely, and dispersed of all his sons in all the countries of Judah and Benjamin, i.e., dispersed all his sons so, that they were placed in all parts of Judah and Benjamin in the fenced cities, and he gave them victual in abundance, and he sought (for them) a multitude of wives. שׁאל, to ask for, for the father brought about the marriage of his sons. He therefore took care that his sons, by being thus scattered in the fenced cities of the country as their governors, were separated from each other, but also that they received the necessary means for living in a way befitting their princely rank, in the shape of an abundant maintenance and a considerable number of wives. They were thus kept in a state of contentment, so that they might not make any attempt to gain the crown, which he had reserved for Abijah; and in this lay the wisdom of his conduct.

Chap. 12

Verse 1

2Ch 12:1Rehoboam's defection from the Lord, and his humiliation by the Egyptian king Shishak. - 2Ch 12:1. The infinitive כּהכין, “at the time of the establishing,” with an indefinite subject, may be expressed in English by the passive: when Rehoboam's royal power was established. The words refer back to 2Ch 11:17. כּחזקתו, “when he had become strong” (חזקה is a nomen verbale: the becoming strong; cf. 2Ch 26:16; 2Ch 11:2), he forsook the Lord, and all Israel with him. The inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah are here called Israel, to hint at the contrast between the actual conduct of the people in their defection from the Lord, and the destiny of Israel, the people of God. The forsaking of the law of Jahve is in substance the fall into idolatry, as we find it stated more definitely in 1Ki 14:22.

Verses 2-3

In punishment of this defection (בי מעלוּ כּי, because they had acted faithlessly to Jahve), Shishak, the king of Egypt, marched with a great host against Jerusalem. This hostile invasion is also briefly narrated in 1Ki 14:25-28. Shishak (Sisak) is, as we have remarked on 1 Kings 14, Sesonchis or Sechonchosis, the first king of the 22nd dynasty, who has celebrated his victory in a relief at Karnak. In this sculpture the names of the cities captured are recorded on shields, and a considerable number have been deciphered with some certainty, and by them our account is completely confirmed. According to 2Ch 12:3, Shishak's host consisted of 1200 chariots, 60,000 horsemen-numbers which, of course, are founded only upon a rough estimate-and an innumerable multitude of footmen, among whom were לוּבים, Libyans, probably the Libyaegyptii of the ancients (see on Gen 10:13); סכּיּים, according to the lxx and Vulg. Troglodytes, probably the Ethiopian Troglodytes, who dwelt in the mountains on the west coast of the Arabian Gulf; and Cushites, i.e., Ethiopians. The Libyans and Cushites are mentioned in Nah 3:9 also as auxiliaries of the Egyptians.

Verses 4-7

After the capture of the fenced cities of Judah, he marched against Jerusalem. - 2Ch 12:5. Then the prophet Shemaiah announced to the king and the princes, who had retired to Jerusalem before Shishak, that the Lord had given them into the power of Shishak because they had forsaken Him. בּיד עזב, forsaken and given over into the hand of Shishak. When the king and the priests immediately humbled themselves before God, acknowledging the righteousness of the Lord, the prophet announced to them further that the Lord would not destroy them since they had humbled themselves, but would give them deliverance in a little space. כּמעט, according to a little, i.e., in a short time. פּליטה is accusative after ונתתּי. My anger shall not pour itself out upon Jerusalem. The pouring out of anger is the designation of an exterminating judgment; cf. 2Ch 34:25.

Verse 8

But (כּי after a negative clause) they shall be his servants, sc. for a short time (see 2Ch 12:7), “that they may know my service, and the service of the kingdoms of the countries” (cf. 1Ch 29:30); i.e., that they may learn to know by experience the difference between the rule of God and that of the heathen kings, and that God's rule was not so oppressive as that of the rulers of the world.

Verses 9-12

With 2Ch 12:9 the account of the war is taken up again and continued by the repetition of the words, “Then marched Shishak ... against Jerusalem” (2Ch 12:4). Shishak plundered the treasures of the temple and the palace; he had consequently captured Jerusalem. The golden shields also which had been placed in the house of the forest of Lebanon, i.e., the palace built by Solomon in Jerusalem, which Solomon had caused to be made (cf. 2Ch 9:16), Shishak took away, and in their place Rehoboam caused brazen shields to be prepared; see on 1Ki 14:26-28. - In 2Ch 12:12 the author of the Chronicle concludes the account of this event with the didactic remark, “Because he (Rehoboam) humbled himself, the anger of Jahve was turned away from him.” להשׁחית ולא, and it was not to extermination utterly (לכלה, properly to destruction, i.e., completely; cf. Eze 13:13). And also in Judah were good things. This is the other motive which caused the Lord to turn away His wrath. Good things are proofs of piety and fear of God, cf. 2Ch 19:3.

Verses 13-14

The length of Rehoboam's reign, his mother, and the judgment about him. Cf. 1Ki 14:21 and 1Ki 14:22. ויּתחזּק here, as in 2Ch 13:21, can, in its connection with what precedes, be only understood to mean that Rehoboam, after his humiliation at the hands of Shishak, by which his kingdom was utterly weakened and almost destroyed, again gained strength and power. Cf. also 2Ch 1:1, where יתחזּק is used of Solomon in the beginning of his reign, after he overcame Adonijah, the pretender to the crown, and his party. - As to the age of Rehoboam, etc., see on 1Ki 14:21. הרע ויּעשׂ, 2Ch 12:14, is defined by the addition, “for he prepared not his heart to seek the Lord.” For the expression cf. 2Ch 19:3; 2Ch 30:19; Ezr 7:10.

Verses 15-16

Close of his reign. On the authorities, see the Introduction, and in reference to the other statements, the commentary on 1Ki 14:29-31. מלחמות, wars, i.e., a state of hostility, was between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all days, can only be understood of the hostile attitude of the two rulers to each other, like מלחמה in Kings; for we have no narrative of wars between them after Rehoboam had abandoned, at the instance of the prophet, his proposed war with the Israelites at the commencement of his reign.

Chap. 13

Verses 1-2

The Reign of Abijah - 2 Chronicles 13

In the book of Kings it is merely remarked in general, that the hostile relationship between Jeroboam and Rehoboam continued during his whole life, and that between Abijah and Jeroboam there was war (2Ch 13:6 and 2Ch 13:7); but not one of his enterprises is recounted, and only his attitude towards the Lord is exactly characterized. In our chapter, on the contrary, we have a vivid and circumstantial narrative of the commencement, course, and results of a great war against Jeroboam, in which Abijah, with the help of the Lord, inflicted a crushing defeat on the great army of the Israelites, and conquered several cities.
2Ch 13:1-2
The commencement and duration of the reign, as in 1Ki 15:1-2. Abijah's mother is here (2Ch 13:2) called Michaiah instead of Maachah, as in 2Ch 11:20 and 1Ki 15:2, but it can hardly be a second name which Maachah had received for some unknown reason; probably מיכיהו is a mere orthographical error for מעכה. She is here called, not the daughter = granddaughter of Abishalom, but after her father, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah; see on 2Ch 11:20.^[6]The War between Abijah and Jeroboam. - היתה מלחמה, war arose, broke out.

Verse 3

Abijah began the war with an army of 400,000 valiant warriors. בּחוּר אישׁ, chosen men. את מ אסר, to bind on war, i.e., to open the war. Jeroboam prepared for the war with 800,000 warriors. The number of Jeroboam's warriors is exactly that which Joab returned as the result, as to Israel, of the numbering of the people commanded by David, while that of Abijah's army is less by 100,000 men than Joab numbered in Judah (2Sa 24:9).

Verse 4

When the two armies lay over against each other, ready for the combat, Abijah addressed the enemy, King Jeroboam and all Israel, in a speech from Mount Zemaraim. The mountain צמרים is met with only here; but a city of this name is mentioned in Jos 18:22, whence we would incline to the conclusion that the mountain near or upon which this city lay was intended. But if this city was situated to the east, not only of Bethel, but also of Jerusalem, on the road to Jericho (see on Jos 18:22), as we may conclude from its enumeration between Beth-arabah and Bethel in Josh. loc. cit., it will not suit our passage, at least if Zemaraim be really represented by the ruin el Sumra to the east of Khan Hadur on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho. Robinson (Phys. Geog. S. 38) conjectures Mount Zemaraim to the east of Bethel, near the border of the two kingdoms, to which Mount Ephraim also extends. Abijah represented first of all (2Ch 13:5-7) to Jeroboam and the Israelites that their kingdom was the result of a revolt against Jahve, who had given the kingship over Israel to David and his sons for ever.

Verses 5-7

2Ch 13:5-7 “Is it not to you to know?” i.e., can it be unknown to you? מלח בּרית, accus. of nearer definition: after the fashion of a covenant of salt, i.e., of an irrevocable covenant; cf. on Lev 2:13 and Num 18:19. “And Jeroboam, the servant of Solomon the son of David (cf. 1Ki 11:11), rebelled against his lord,” with the help of frivolous, worthless men (רקים as in Jdg 9:4; Jdg 11:3; בליּעל בּני as in 1Ki 21:10, 1Ki 21:13 -not recurring elsewhere in the Chronicle), who gathered around him, and rose against Rehoboam with power. על התאמּץ, to show oneself powerful, to show power against any one. Against this rising Rehoboam showed himself not strong enough, because he was an inexperienced man and soft of heart. נער denotes not “a boy,” for Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he entered upon his reign, but “an inexperienced young man,” as in 1Ch 29:1. לבב רך, soft of heart, i.e., faint-hearted, inclined to give way, without energy to make a stand against those rising insolently against him. lp' התחזק ולא, and showed himself not strong before them, proved to be too weak in opposition to them. This representation does not conform to the state of the case as narrated in 2 Chron 10. Rehoboam did not appear soft-hearted and compliant in the negotiation with the rebellious tribes at Sichem; on the contrary, he was hard and defiant, and showed himself youthfully inconsiderate only in throwing to the winds the wise advice of the older men, and in pursuance of the rash counsel of the young men who had grown up with him, brought about the rupture by his domineering manner. But Abijah wishes to justify his father as much as possible in his speech, and shifts all the guilt of the rebellion of the ten tribes from the house of David on to Jeroboam and his worthless following.

Verses 8-9

Abijah then points out to his opponents the vanity of their trust in the great multitude of their warriors and their gods, while yet they had driven out the priests of Jahve. “And now ye say,” scil. in your heart, i.e., you think to show yourself strong before the kingdom of Jahve in the hands of the sons of David, i.e., against the kingdom of Jahve ruled over by the sons of David, by raising a great army in order to make war upon and to destroy this kingdom. רב המון ואתּם, and truly ye are a great multitude, and with you are the golden calves, which Jeroboam hath made to you for gods; but trust not unto them, for Jahve, the true God, have ye not for you as a helper.

Verse 9

2Ch 13:9 “Yea, ye have cast out the priests of Jahve, the sons of Aaron, and made you priests after the manner of the nations of the lands. Every one who has come, to fill his hand with a young bullock and ... he has become a priest to the no-god.” ידו מלּא, to fill his hand, denotes, in the language of the law, to invest one with the priesthood, and connected with ליהוה it signifies to provide oneself with that which is to be offered to Jahve. To fill his hand with a young bullock, etc., therefore denotes to come with sacrificial beasts, to cause oneself to be consecrated priest. The animals mentioned also, a young bullock and seven rams, point to the consecration to the priesthood. In Ex 29 a young bullock as a sin-offering, a ram as a burnt-offering, and a ram as a consecratory-offering, are prescribed for this purpose. These sacrifices were to be repeated during seven days, so that in all seven rams were required for consecratory-sacrifices. Abijah mentions only one young bullock along with these, because it was not of any importance for him to enumerate perfectly the sacrifices which were necessary. But by offering these sacrifices no one becomes a priest of Jahve, and consequently the priests of Jeroboam also are only priests for Not-Elohim, i.e., only for the golden calves made Elohim by Jeroboam, to whom the attributes of the Godhead did not belong.

Verses 10-11

While, therefore, the Israelites have no-gods in their golden calves, Judah has Jahve for its God, whom it worships in His temple in the manner prescribed by Moses. “But in Jahve is our God, and we have not forsaken Him,” in so far, viz., as they observed the legal Jahve-worship. So Abijah himself explains his words, “as priests serve Him the sons of Aaron (who were chosen by Jahve), and the Levites are בּמלאכת, in service,” i.e., performing the service prescribed to them. As essential parts of that service of God, the offering of the daily burnt-offering and the daily incense-offering (Exo 29:38., 2Ch 30:7), the laying out of the shew-bread (Exo 25:30; Lev 24:5.), the lighting of the lamps of the golden candlesticks (Exo 25:37; Exo 27:20.), are mentioned. In this respect they keep the יהוה משׁמרת (cf. Lev 8:35).

Verse 12

Abijah draws from all this the conclusion: “Behold, with us at our head are (not the two calves of gold, but) God (האלהים with the article, the true God) and His priests, and the alarm-trumpets to sound against you.” He mentions the trumpets as being the divinely appointed pledges that God would remember them in war, and would deliver them from their enemies, Num 10:9. Then he closes with a warning to the Israelites not to strive with Jahve, the God of their fathers.

Verses 13-15

The war; Judah's victory, and the defeat of Jeroboam and the Israelites. - 2Ch 13:13. Jeroboam caused the ambush (the troops appointed to be an ambush) to go round about, so as to come upon their rear (i.e., of the men of Judah); and so they (the main division of Jeroboam's troops) were before Judah, and the ambush in their rear (i.e., of the men of Judah); and the men of Judah, when they turned themselves (scil. to attack), saw war before and behind them, i.e., perceived that they were attacked in front and rear. In this dangerous position the men of Judah cried to the Lord, and the priests blew the trumpets (2Ch 13:15); and as they raised this war-cry, God smote their enemies so that they took to flight. In ויּריעוּ and בּהריע the loud shout of the warriors and the clangour of the trumpets in the hands of the priests are comprehended; and הריע is neither to be taken to refer only to the war-cry raised by the warriors in making the attack, nor, with Bertheau, to be referred only to the blowing of the trumpets.

Verses 16-17

So Abijah and his people inflicted a great blow (defeat) on the Israelites, so that 500,000 of them, i.e., more than the half of Jeroboam's whole army, fell.

Verses 18-19

The results of this victory. The Israelites were bowed down, their power weakened; the men of Judah became strong, mighty, because they relied upon Jahve their God. Following up his victory, Abijah took from Jeroboam several cities with their surrounding domains: Bethel, the present Beitin, see on Jos 7:2; Jeshanah, occurring only here, and the position of which has not yet been ascertained; and Ephron (עפרון, Keth.; the Keri, on the contrary, עפרין). This city cannot well be identified with Mount Ephron, Jos 15:9; for that mountain was situated on the southern frontier of Benjamin, not far from Jerusalem, while the city Ephron is to be sought much farther north, in the neighbourhood of Bethel. C. v. Raumer and others identify Ephron or Ephrain both with Ophrah of Benjamin, which, it is conjectured, was situated near or in Tayibeh, to the east of Bethel, and with the Ἐφραΐ́μ, Joh 11:54, whither Jesus withdrew into the wilderness, which, according to Josephus, Bell. Jud. iv. 9. 9, lay in the neighbourhood of Bethel. See on Jos 18:23.<ref> The account of this war, which is peculiar to the Chronicle, and which de Wette declared, on utterly insufficient grounds, to be an invention of the chronicler (cf. against him my apol. Vers. über die Chron. S. 444ff.), is thus regarded by Ewald (Gesch. Isr. iii. S. 466, der 2 Aufl.): “The chronicler must certainly have found among his ancient authorities an account of this conclusion of the war, and we cannot but believe that we have here, in so far, authentic tradition;” and only the details of the description are the results of free expansion by the chronicler, but in the speech 2Ch 13:4-13 every word and every thought is marked by the peculiar colouring of the Chronicle. But this last assertion is contradicted by Ewald's own remark, i. S. 203, that “in 2Ch 13:4-7, 2Ch 13:19-21, an antiquated manner of speech and representation appears, while in the other verses, on the contrary, those usual with the chronicler are found,” - in support of which he adduces the words בליּעל בּני, 2Ch 13:7, and מלח בּרית, 2Ch 13:5. According to this view, Abijah's speech cannot have been freely draughted by the chronicler, but must have been derived, at least so far as the fundamental thoughts are concerned, from an ancient authority, doubtless the Midrash of the prophet Iddo, cited in 2Ch 13:22. But Ewald's further remark (iii. S. 466), that the author of the Chronicle, because he regarded the heathenized Samaria of his time as the true representative of the old kingdom of the ten tribes, seized this opportunity to put into King Abijah's mouth a long denunciatory and didactic speech, addressed at the commencement of the battle to the enemy as rebels not merely against the house of David, but also against the true religion, is founded upon the unscriptural idea that the calf-worship of the Israelites was merely a somewhat sensuous form of the true Jahve-worship, and was fundamentally distinct from the heathen idolatry, and also from the idolatry of the later Samaritans. In the judgment of all the prophets, not only of Hosea and Amos, but also of the prophetic author of the book of Kings, the calf-worship was a defection from Jahve, the God of the fathers, - a forsaking of the commands of Jahve, and a serving of the Baals; cf. e.g., 1 Kings 13; 2 Kings 17:7-23. What Abijah says of the calf-worship of the Israelites, and of Judah's attitude to Jahve and His worship in the temple, is founded on the truth, and is also reconcilable with the statement in 1Ki 15:3, that Abijah's heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord, like David's heart. Abijah had promoted the legal temple-worship even by consecratory gifts (1Ki 15:15), and could consequently quite well bring forward the worship of God in Judah as the true worship, in contrast to the Israelitic calf-worship, for the discouragement of his enemies, and for the encouragement of his own army; and we may consequently regard the kernel, or the essential contents of the speech, as being historically well-founded. The account of the war, moreover, is also shown to be historical by the exact statement as to the conquered cities in 2Ch 13:19, which evidently has been derived from ancient authorities. Only in the statements about the number of warriors, and of the slain Israelites, the numbers are not to be estimated according to the literal value of the figures; for they are, as has been already hinted in the commentary, only an expression in figures of the opinion of contemporaries of the war, that both kings had made a levy of all the men in their respective kingdoms capable of bearing arms, and that Jeroboam was defeated with such slaughter that he lost more than the half of his warriors.</ref>

Verse 20

Jeroboam could not afterwards gain power (כּוח עצר, as in 1Ch 29:14): “And Jahve smote him, and he died.” The meaning of this remark is not clear, since we know nothing further of the end of Jeroboam's life than that he died two years after Abijah. ויּגּפהוּ can hardly refer to the unfortunate result of the war (2Ch 13:15.), for Jeroboam outlived the war by several years. We would be more inclined to understand it of the blow mentioned in 1Ki 14:1-8, when God announced to him by Ahijah the extermination of his house, and took away his son Abijah, who was mourned by all Israel.

Verse 21

2Ch 13:21Wives and children of Abijah. His death. - 2Ch 13:21. While Jeroboam was not able to recover from the defeat he had suffered, Abijah established himself in his kingdom (יתחזּק, cf. 2Ch 12:13), and took to himself fourteen wives. The taking of these wives is not to be regarded as later in time than his establishment of his rule after the victory over Jeroboam. Since Abijah reigned only three years, he must have already had the greater number of his wives and children when he ascended the throne, as we may gather also from 2Ch 11:21-23. The ו consec. with ישּׂא serves only to connect logically the information as to his wives and children with the preceding, as the great increase of his family was a sign of Abijah's increase in strength, while Jeroboam's dynasty was soon extirpated.

Verse 22

As to the מדרשׁ of the prophet Iddo, see the Introduction. 13:23 (2Ch 14:1). This is remarked here, because this rest was also a result of Abijah's great victory over Jeroboam.

Chap. 14

Verses 1-3

Asa's Reign - 2 Chronicles 14-16

In 1 Kings 15:9-24 it is merely recorded of Asa, that he reigned forty-one years, did that which was right as David did, removed from the land all the idols which his fathers had made, and, although the high places were not removed, was devoted to the Lord during his whole life, and laid up in the temple treasury all that had been consecrated by his father and himself. Then it is related that when Baasha marched against him, and began to fortify Ramah, he induced the Syrian king Benhadad, by sending to him the treasures of the temple and of his palace, to break faith with Baasha, and to make an inroad upon and smite the northern portion of the land; that Baasha was thereby compelled to abandon the building of Ramah, and to fall back to Tirzah, and that thereupon Asa caused the fortifications of Ramah to be pulled down, and the cities Geba and Benjamin and Mizpah to be fortified with the materials; and, finally, it is recorded that Asa in his old age became diseased in his feet, and died. The Chronicle also characterizes Asa as a pious king, who did that which was right, and removed the high places and sun-pillars in the land; but gives, as to other matters, a much more detailed account of his reign of forty-one years. It states that in the first years, as the land had rest, he built fortified cities in Judah, and had an army fit for war (2Ch 14:1-7); that thereupon he marched against the Cushite Zerah, who was then advancing upon Judah with an innumerable host, prayed for help to the Lord, who then smote the Cushites, so that they fled; and that Asa pursued them to Gerar, and returned with great booty (2Ch 14:8-14). Then we learn that the prophet Azariah, the son of Oded, came to meet him, who, pointing to the victory which the Lord had granted them, called upon the king and the people to remain stedfast in their fidelity to the Lord; that Asa thereupon took courage, extirpated all the still remaining idolatrous abominations from the land, and in the fifteenth year of his reign held with the people a great sacrificial feast in Jerusalem, renewed the covenant with the Lord, crushed out all the remains of former idolatry, although the high places were not destroyed, and also deposited in the temple treasury all that had been consecrated by his father and himself (2 Chron 15). Thereafter Baasha's inroad upon Judah and the alliance with Ben-hadad of Syria are narrated (2Ch 16:1-6), as in the book of Kings; but it is also added that the prophet Hanani censured his seeking help from the king of Syria, and was thereupon put into the prison-house by Asa (2Ch 16:7-10); and then we have an account of the end of his reign, in which several additions to the account in 1 Kings are communicated (2Ch 16:11-14).
2Ch 14:1-3Asa's efforts for the abolition of idolatry and the establishment of the kingdom. - 2Ch 14:1-4. The good and right in God's eyes which Asa did is further defined in 2Ch 14:2-4. He abolished all the objects of the idolatrous worship. The “altars of the strangers” are altars consecrated to foreign gods; from them the בּמות, high places, are distinguished-these latter being illegal places of sacrifice connected with the worship of Jahve (see on 1Ki 15:14). The מצּבוה are the statues or monumental columns consecrated to Baal, and אשׁרים the wooden idols, tree-trunks, or trees, which were consecrated to Astarte (see on 1Ki 14:23 and Deu 16:21). Asa at the same time commanded the people to worship Jahve, the God of the fathers, and to follow the law.

Verses 4-6

He removed from all the cities of Judah the altars of the high places, and the חמּנים, sun-pillars, pillars or statues consecrated to Baal as sun-god, which were erected near or upon the altars of Baal (2Ch 34:4; see on Lev 26:30). In consequence of this the kingdom had rest לפניו, before him, i.e., under his oversight (cf. Num 8:22). This ten-years' quiet (2Ch 14:1) which God granted him, Asa employed in building fortresses in Judah (2Ch 14:5). “We will build these cities, and surround them with walls and towers, gates and bolts.” It is not said what the cities were, but they were at any rate others than Geba and Mizpah, which he caused to be built after the war with Baasha (2Ch 16:6). “The land is still before us,” i.e., open, free from enemies, so that we may freely move about, and build therein according to our pleasure. For the phraseology, cf. Gen 13:9. The repetition of דּרשׁנוּ, 2Ch 14:6, is impassioned speech. “They built and had success;” they built with effect, without meeting with any hindrances.

Verse 7

Asa had also a well-equipped, well-armed army. The men of Judah were armed with a large shield and lance (cf. 1Ch 12:24), the Benjamites with a small shield and bow (cf. 1Ch 8:40). The numbers are great; of Judah 300,000, of Benjamin 280,000 men. Since in these numbers the whole population capable of bearing arms is included, 300,000 men does not appear too large for Judah, but 280,000 is a very large number for Benjamin, and is founded probably on an overestimate.

Verse 8

2Ch 14:8The victory over the Cushite Zerah. - 2Ch 14:8. “And there went forth against them Zerah.” אליהם for עליהם refers to Asa's warriors mentioned in 2Ch 14:7. The number of the men in Judah capable of bearing arms is mentioned only to show that Asa set his hope of victory over the innumerable host of the Cushites not on the strength of his army, but on the all-powerful help of the Lord (2Ch 14:10). The Cushite זרח is usually identified with the second king of the 22nd (Bubastitic) dynasty, Osorchon I; while Brugsch, hist. de l'Eg. i. p. 298, on the contrary, has raised objections, and holds Zerah to be an Ethiopian and not an Egyptian prince, who in the reign of Takeloth I, about 944 b.c., probably marched through Egypt as a conqueror (cf. G. Rösch in Herz.'s Realenc. xviii. S. 460). The statement as to Zerah's army, that it numbered 1,000,000 warriors and 300 war-chariots, rests upon a rough estimate, in which 1000 times 1000 expresses the idea of the greatest possible number. The Cushites pressed forward to Mareshah, i.e., Marissa, between Hebron and Ashdod (see on 2Ch 11:8).

Verse 9

Thither Asa marched to meet them, and drew up his army in battle array in the valley Zephathah, near Mareshah. The valley Zephathah is not, as Robins., Pal. sub voce, thinks, to be identified with Tel es Safieh, but must lie nearer Mareshah, to the west or north-west of Marâsch.

Verse 10

Then he called upon the Lord his God for help. וגו עמּך אין we translate, with Berth., “None is with Thee (on עמּך, cf. 2Ch 20:6; Psa 73:25) to help between a mighty one and a weak,” i.e., no other than Thou can help in an unequal battle, i.e., help the weaker side; while the Vulg., on the contrary, after the analogy of 1Sa 14:6, translates, “non est apud te ulla distantia, utrum in paucis auxilieris an in pluribus;” and the older commentators (Schmidt, Ramb.) give the meaning thus: “perinde est tibi potentiori vel imbecilliori opem ferre.” But in 1Sa 14:16 the wording is different, so that that passage cannot be a standard for us here. “In Thy name (i.e., trusting in Thy help) are we come against this multitude” (not “have we fallen upon this multitude”). וגו יעצר אל, “Let not a mortal retain strength with Thee” (עצר = כּח עצר,   2Ch 13:20; 1Ch 29:14), i.e., let not weak men accomplish anything with Thee, show Thy power or omnipotence over weak men.

Verse 11

God heard this prayer. Jahve drove the Cushites into flight before Asa, scil. by His mighty help.

Verse 12

Asa, with his people, pursued to Gerar, the old ancient Philistine city, whose ruins Rowlands has discovered in the Khirbet el Gerar, in the Wady Jorf el Gerar (the torrent of Gerar), three leagues south-south-east of Gaza (see on Gen 20:1). “And there fell of the Cushites, so that to them was not revival,” i.e., so many that they could not make a stand and again collect themselves, ut eis vivificatio i. e. copias restaurandi ratio non esset, as older commentators, in Annott. uberior. ad h. l., have already rightly interpreted it. The words are expressions for complete defeat. Berth. translates incorrectly: “until to them was nothing living;” for לאין does not stand for לאין עד, but ל serves to subordinate the clause, “so that no one,” where in the older language אין alone would have been sufficient, as in 2Ch 20:25; 1Ch 22:4, cf. Ew. §315, c; and מחיה denotes, not “a living thing,” but only “preservation of life, vivification, revival, maintenance.” For they were broken before Jahve and before His host. מחנהוּ, i.e., Asa's army is called Jahve's, because Jahve fought in and with it against the enemy. There is no reason to suppose, with some older commentators, that there is any reference to an angelic host or heavenly camp (Gen 32:2.). And they (Asa and his people) brought back very much booty.

Verse 13

2Ch 14:13 “They smote all the cities round about Gerar,” which, as we must conclude from this, had made common cause with the Cushites, being inhabited by Philistines; for the fear of Jahve had fallen upon them. יהוה פּחד יהוה . here, and in 2Ch 17:10; 2Ch 20:29, as in 1Sa 11:7, the fear of the omnipotence displayed by Jahve in the annihilation of the innumerable hostile army. In these cities Judah found much booty.

Verses 14-15

They also smote the tents of the herds of the wandering tribes of that district, and carried away many sheep and camels as booty.

Chap. 15

Verses 1-4

2Ch 15:1-4The prophet Azariah's exhortation to faithful cleaving to the Lord, and the solemn renewal of the covenant. - 2Ch 15:1-7. The prophet's speech. The prophet Azariah, the son of Oded, is mentioned only here. The conjecture of some of the older theologians, that עודד was the same person as עדּו   (2Ch 12:15; 2Ch 9:29), has no tenable foundation. Azariah went to meet the king and people returning from the war (לפני יצא, he went forth in the presence of Asa, i.e., coming before him; cf. 2Ch 28:9; 1Ch 12:17; 1Ch 14:8). “Jahve was with you (has given you the victory), because ye were with Him (held to Him).” Hence the general lesson is drawn: If ye seek Him, He will be found of you (cf. Jer 29:13); and if ye forsake Him, He will forsake you (cf. 2Ch 24:20; 2Ch 12:5). To impress the people deeply with this truth, Azariah draws a powerful picture of the times when a people is forsaken by God, when peace and security in social intercourse disappear, and the terrors of civil war prevail. Opinions as to the reference intended in this portrayal of the dreadful results of defection from God have been from antiquity very much divided. Tremell. and Grot., following the Targ., take the words to refer to the condition of the kingdom of the ten tribes at that time; others think they refer to the past, either to the immediately preceding period of the kingdom of Judah, to the times of the defection under Rehoboam and Abijah, before Asa had suppressed idolatry (Syr., Arab., Raschi), or to the more distant past, the anarchic period of the judges, from Joshua's death, and that of the high priest Phinehas, until Eli and Samuel's reformation (so especially Vitringa, de synag. vet. p. 335ff.). Finally, still others (Luther, Clericus, Budd., etc.) interpret the words as prophetic, as descriptive of the future, and make them refer either to the unquiet times under the later idolatrous kings, to the times of the Assyrian or Chaldean exile (Kimchi), or to the condition of the Jews since the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans up till the present day. Of these three views, the first, that which takes the reference to be to the present, i.e., the state of the kingdom of the ten tribes at that time, is decidedly erroneous; for during the first thirty years of the existence of that kingdom no such anarchic state of things existed as is portrayed in vv. 5 and 6, and still less could a return of the ten tribes to the Lord at that time be spoken of (2Ch 15:4). It is more difficult to decide between the two other main views. The grounds which Vitr., Ramb., Berth. adduce in support of the reference to the times of the judges are not convincing; for the contents and form (2Ch 15:4) do not prove 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,^[7] 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: “Many days are for Israel (i.e., Israel lives many days) without the true God, and without teaching priests, and without law.” רבּים ימים is not accus. of time (Berth.), but the subject of the sentence; and אלה ללא is not subject - “during many days there was to the people Israel no true God” (Berth.), - but predicate, while ל expresses the condition into which anything comes, and לא forms part of the following noun: Days for Israel for having not a true God. ללא differs from בּלא, “without,” just as ל differs from בּ; the latter expressing the being in a condition, the former the coming into it. On אמת אלהי, cf. Jer 10:10. אמת כּהן is not to be limited to the high priest, for it refers to the priests in general, whose office it was to teach the people law and justice (Lev 10:10; Deu 33:10). The accent is upon the predicates אמת and אמת. Israel had indeed Elohim, but not the true God, and also priests, but not priests who attended to their office, who watched over the fulfilment of the law; and so they had no תּורה, notwithstanding the book of the law composed by Moses.

Verse 5

2Ch 15:5 “And in these times is no peace to those going out or to those coming in.” Free peaceful intercommunication is interfered with (cf. Jdg 5:6; Jdg 6:2), but great terrors upon all inhabitants of the lands (הערצות are, according to the usage of the chronicler, the various districts of the land of Israel).

Verses 6-7

2Ch 15:6-7 “And one people is dashed in pieces by the other, and one city by the other; for God confounds them by all manner of adversity.” המם denotes confusion, which God brings about in order to destroy His enemies (Exo 14:24; Jos 10:10; Jdg 4:15). Days when they were without the true God, without teaching prophets, and without law, Israel had already experienced in the times of defection after Joshua (cf. Jdg 2:11.), but will experience them in the future still oftener and more enduringly under the idolatrous kings in the Assyrian and Babylonian exile, and still even now in its dispersion among all nations. That this saying refers to the future is also suggested by the fact that Hosea (Hos 3:4) utters, with a manifest reference to 2Ch 15:3 of our speech, a threat that the ten tribes will be brought into a similar condition (cf. Hos 9:3-4); and even Moses proclaimed to the people that the punishment of defection from the Lord would be dispersion among the heathen, where Israel would be compelled to serve idols of wood and stone (Deu 4:27., Deu 28:36, Deu 28:64), i.e., would be without the true God. That Israel would, in such oppression, turn to its God, would seek Him, and that the Lord would be found of them, is a thought also expressed by Moses, the truth of which Israel had not only had repeated experience of during the time of the judges, but also would again often experience in the future (cf. Hos 3:5; Jer 31:1; Eze 36:24.; Rom 11:25.). בּצּר־לו refers back to Deu 4:30; the expression in 2Ch 15:4 is founded upon Deu 4:29 (cf. Isa 55:6). - Of the oppression in the times of defection portrayed in 2Ch 15:5., Israel had also had in the time of the judges repeated experience (cf. Jdg 5:6), most of all under the Midianite yoke (Jdg 6:2); but such times often returned, as the employment of the very words of the first hemistich of 2Ch 15:5 in Zec 8:10, in reference to the events of the post-exilic time, shows; and not only the prophet Amos (Amo 3:9) sees רבּות מהוּמות, great confusions, where all is in an indistinguishable whirl in the Samaria of his time, but they repeated themselves at all times when the defection prevailed, and godlessness degenerated into revolution and civil war. Azariah portrays the terrors of such times in strong colours (2Ch 15:6): “Dashed to pieces is people by people, and city by city.” The war of the tribes of Israel against Benjamin (Judg 20:f.), and the struggle of the Gileadites under Jephthah with Ephraim (Jdg 12:4.), were civil wars; but they were only mild preludes of the bellum omnium contra omnes depicted by Azariah, which only commenced with the dissolution of both kingdoms, and was announced by the later prophets as the beginning of the judgment upon rebellious Israel (e.g., Isa 9:17-20), and upon all peoples and kingdoms hostile to God (Zec 14:13; Mat 24:7). With הממם אלהים כּי cf. רבּה יי מהוּמת, Zec 14:13. To this portrayal of the dread results of defection from the Lord, Azariah adds (2Ch 15:7) the exhortation, “Be ye strong (vigorous), and show yourselves not slack, languid” (cf. Zep 3:16; Neh 6:9); i.e., in this connection, proceed courageously and vigorously to keep yourselves true to the Lord, to exterminate all idolatry; then you shall obtain a great reward: cf. on these words, Jer 31:16.

Verses 8-9

2Ch 15:8-9Completion of the reform in worship, and the renewal of the covenant. - 2Ch 15:8. The speech and prophecy of the prophet strengthened the king to carry out the work he had begun, viz., the extirpation of idolatry from the whole land. In 2Ch 15:8 the words הנּניא עדד are surprising, not only because the prophet is called in 2Ch 15:1, not Oded, but Azariah the son of Oded, but also on account of the preceding הנּבוּאה in the absolute state, which cannot stand, without more ado, for the stat. constr. נבוּאת (cf. 2Ch 9:29). The view of Cler. and Ew., that by an orthographical error בּן עזריהוּ has been dropped out, does not remove the difficulty, for it leaves the stat. absol. הנּבוּאה .lo unexplained. This is also the case with the attempt to explain the name Oded in 2Ch 15:8 by transposing the words Azariah ben Oded, 2Ch 15:1, so as to obtain Oded ben Azariah (Movers); and there seems to be no other solution of the difficulty than to strike out the words Oded the prophet from the text as a gloss which has crept into it (Berth.), or to suppose that there is a considerable hiatus in the text caused by the dropping out of the words בּן עזריהוּ דּבּר אשׁר.^[8] התחזק corresponds to חזקוּ. Asa complied with the exhortation, and removed (ויּעבר, as in 1Ki 15:12) all abominations (idols) from the whole land, and from the cities which he had taken from Mount Ephraim: these are the cities which Asa's father Abijah had conquered, 2Ch 13:19. “And he renewed the altar before the porch,” i.e., the altar of burnt-offering, which might stand in need of repairs sixty years after the building of the temple. The Vulg. is incorrect in translating dedicavit, and Berth. in supposing that the renovation refers only to a purification of it from defilement by idolatry. חדּשׁ is everywhere to renew, repair, restaurare; cf. 2Ch 24:4. - But in order to give internal stability to the reform he had begun, Asa prepared a great sacrificial festival, to which he invited the people out of all the kingdom, and induced them to renew the covenant with the Lord. 2Ch 15:9. He gathered together the whole of Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers out of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon, who dwelt among them. Strangers, i.e., Israelites from the ten tribes, had come over as early as Rehoboam's reign to the kingdom of Judah (2Ch 11:16); these immigrations increased under Asa when it was seen that Jahve was with him, and had given him a great victory over the Cushites. It is surprising that Simeon should be mentioned among the tribes from which Israelites went over to the kingdom of Judah, since Simeon had received his heritage in the southern district of the tribal domain of Judah, so that at the division of the kingdom it would not well separate itself from Judah, and join with the tribes who had revolted from the house of David. The grouping together of Simeon, Ephraim, and Manasseh, both in our verse and in 2Ch 34:6, can consequently scarcely be otherwise explained than by the supposition, either from the cities assigned to them under Joshua into districts in the northern kingdom (Berth.), or that the Simeonites, though politically united with Judah, yet in religious matters were not so, but abstained from taking part in the Jahve-worship in Jerusalem, and had set up in Beersheba a worship of their own similar to that in Bethel and Dan. In such a case, the more earnest and thoughtful people from Simeon, as well as from Ephraim and Manasseh, may have gone to Jerusalem to the sacrificial festival prepared by Asa. In favour of this last supposition we may adduce the fact that the prophet Amos, Amo 5:5; Amo 4:4; Amo 8:14, mentions Beersheba, along with Bethel and Gilgal, as a place to which pilgrimages were made by the idolatrous Israelites.

Verses 10-11

At this festival, which was held on the third month of the fifteenth year of Asa's reign, they offered of the booty, i.e., of the cattle captured in the war against the Cushites (2Ch 14:14), 700 oxen and 7000 sheep. הביאוּ מן־השּׁלל defines the ויּזבּחוּ more closely: they sacrificed, viz., from the booty they offered. From this it seems to follow that the sacrificial festival was held soon after the return from the war against the Cushites. The attack of the Cushite Zerah upon Judah can only have occurred in the eleventh year of Asa, according to 2Ch 14:1; but it is not stated how long the war lasted, nor when Asa returned to Jerusalem (2Ch 14:14) after conquering the enemy and plundering the towns of the south land. But Asa may quite well have remained longer in the south after the Cushites had been driven back, in order again firmly to establish his rule there; and on his return to Jerusalem, in consequence of the exhortation of the prophet Azariah, may have straightway determined to hold a sacrificial festival at which the whole people should renew the covenant with the Lord, and have set apart and reserved a portion of the captured cattle for this purpose.

Verse 12

And they entered into the covenant, i.e., they renewed the covenant, bound themselves by a promise on oath (שׁבוּעה, 2Ch 15:14) to hold the covenant, viz., to worship Jahve the God of the fathers with their whole heart and soul; cf. Deu 4:29. With בּבּרית בּוא, cf. Jer 34:10.

Verses 13-14

To attest the sincerity of their return to the Lord, they determined at the same time to punish defection from Jahve on the part of any one, without respect to age or sex, with death, according to the command in Deu 17:2-6. ליהוה דרשׁ לא, not to worship Jahve, is substantially the same as to serve other gods, Deu 17:3. This they swore aloud and solemnly, בּתרוּעה, with joyful shouting and the sound of trumpets and horns.

Verses 15-18

This return to the Lord brought joy to all Judah, i.e., to the whole kingdom, because they had sworn with all their heart, and sought the Lord בכל־רצונם, with perfect willingness and alacrity. Therefore Jahve was found of them, and gave them rest round about. - In 2Ch 15:16-18, in conclusion, everything which still remained to be said of Asa's efforts to promote the Jahve-worship is gathered up. Even the queen-mother Maachah was deposed by him from the dignity of ruler because she had made herself an image of Asherah; yet he did not succeed in wholly removing the altars on the high places from the land, etc. These statements are also to be found in 1Ki 15:13-16, and are commented upon at that place. Only in the Chronicle we have אסא אם instead of אמּו (Kings), because there Maachah had just been named (2Ch 15:10); and to the statement as to the abolition of idolatry, ירק, crushed, is added, and in 2Ch 15:17 מיּשׂראל; while, on the other hand, after שׁלם, יהוה עם is omitted, as not being necessary to the expression of the meaning.

Verse 19

2Ch 15:19 2Ch 15:19 is different from 1Ki 15:16. In the latter passage it is said: war was between Asa and Baasha the king of Israel כּל־ימיהם, i.e., so long as both reigned contemporaneously; while in the Chronicle it is said: war was not until the thirty-fifth year of Asa's reign. This discrepancy is partly got rid of by taking מלחמה in the book of Kings to denote the latent hostility or inimical attitude of the two kingdoms towards each other, and in the Chronicle to denote a war openly declared. The date, until the thirty-fifth year, causes a greater difficulty; but this has been explained in 2Ch 16:1 by the supposition that in the thirty-sixth year of Asa's reign war broke out between Asa and Baasha, when the meaning of our 16th verse would be: It did not come to war with Baasha until the thirty-sixth year of Asa's rule. For further remarks on this, see on 2Ch 16:1.

Chap. 16

Verses 1-5

2Ch 16:1-5War with Baasha, and the weakness of Asa's faith. The end of his reign. - 2Ch 16:1-6. Baasha's invasion of Judah, and Asa's prayer for help to the king of Syria. The statement, “In the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha the king of Israel came up against Judah,” is inaccurate, or rather cannot possibly be correct; for, according to 1Ki 16:8, 1Ki 16:10, Baasha died in the twenty-sixth year of Asa's reign, and his successor Elah was murdered by Zimri in the second year of his reign, i.e., in the twenty-seventh year of Asa. The older commentators, for the most part, accepted the conjecture that the thirty-fifth year (in 2Ch 15:19) is to be reckoned from the commencement of the kingdom of Judah; and consequently, since Asa became king in the twentieth year of the kingdom of Judah, that Baasha's invasion occurred in the sixteenth year of his reign, and that the land had enjoyed peace till his fifteenth year; cf. Ramb. ad h. l.; des Vignoles, Chronol. i. p. 299. This is in substance correct; but the statement, “in the thirty-sixth year of Asa's kingship,” cannot re reconciled with it. For even if we suppose that the author of the Chronicle derived his information from an authority which reckoned from the rise of the kingdom of Judah, yet it could not have been said on that authority, אסא למלכוּת. This only the author of the Chronicle can have written; but then he cannot also have taken over the statement, “in the thirty-sixth year,” unaltered from his authority into his book. There remains therefore no alternative but to regard the text as erroneous - the letters ל (30) and י (10), which are somewhat similar in the ancient Hebrew characters, having been interchanged by a copyist; and hence the numbers 35 and 36 have arisen out of the original 15 and 16. By this alteration all difficulties are removed, and all the statements of the Chronicle as to Asa's reign are harmonized. During the first ten years there was peace (2Ch 14:1); thereafter, in the eleventh year, the inroad of the Cushites; and after the victory over them there was the continuation of the Cultus reform, and rest until the fifteenth year, in which the renewal of the covenant took place (2Ch 15:19, cf. with 2Ch 15:10); and in the sixteenth year the war with Baasha arose.^[9]
The account of this war in 2Ch 16:1-6 agrees with that in 1Ki 15:17-22 almost literally, and has been commented upon in the remarks on 1 Kings 15. In 2Ch 16:2 the author of the Chronicle has mentioned only the main things. Abel-maim, i.e., Abel in the Water (2Ch 16:4), is only another name for Abel-Beth-Maachah (Kings); see on 2Sa 20:14. In the same verse נפתּלי ערי כּל־מסכּנות ואת is surprising, “and all magazines (or stores) of the cities of Naphtali,” instead of נפתּלי כּל־ארץ על כּל־כּנּרות את, “all Kinneroth, together with all the land of Naphtali” (Kings). Then. and Berth. think ערי מסכנות has arisen out of ארץ and כנרות by a misconception of the reading; while Gesen., Dietr. in Lex. sub voce כּנּרות, conjecture that in 1Ki 15:20 מסכּנות should be read instead of כּנּרות. Should the difference actually be the result only of a misconception, then the latter conjecture would have much more in its favour than the first. But it is a more probable solution of the difficulty that the text of the Chronicle is a translation of the unusual and, especially on account of the כּל־ארץ נ על, scarcely intelligible כּל־כּנּרות. כּנּרות is the designation of the very fertile district on the west side of the Sea of Kinnereth, i.e., Gennesaret, after which a city also was called כּנּרת (see on Jos 19:35), and which, on account of its fertility, might be called the granary of the tribal domain of Naphtali. But the smiting of a district can only be a devastation of it, - a plundering and destruction of its produce, both in stores and elsewhere. With this idea the author of the Chronicle, instead of the district Kinnereth, the name of which had perhaps become obsolete in his time, speaks of the מסכּנות, the magazines or stores, of the cities of Naphtali. In 2Ch 16:5, too, we cannot hold the addition את־מלאכתּו ויּשׁבּת, “he caused his work to rest,” as Berth. does, for an interpretation of the original reading, בּתרצה ויּשׁב (Kings), it having become illegible: it is rather a free rendering of the thought that Baasha abandoned his attempt upon Judah.

Verse 6

In regard to the building of Mizpah, it is casually remarked in Jer 41:9 that Asa had there built a cistern.

Verses 7-8

2Ch 16:7-8The rebuke of the prophet Hanani, and Asa's crime. - 2Ch 16:7. The prophet Hanani is met with only here. Jehu, the son of Hanani, who announced to Baasha the ruin of his house (1Ki 16:1), and who reappears under Jehoshaphat (2Ch 19:2), was without doubt his son. Hanani said to King Asa, “Because thou hast relied on the king of Aram, and not upon Jahve thy God, therefore is the host of the king of Aram escaped out of thy hand.” Berth. has correctly given the meaning thus: “that Asa, if he had relied upon God, would have conquered not only the host of Baasha, but also the host of the king of Damascus, if he had, as was to be feared, in accordance with his league with Baasha (2Ch 16:3), in common with Israel, made an attack upon the kingdom of Judah.” To confirm this statement, the prophet points to the victory over the great army of the Cushites, which Asa had won by his trust in God the Lord. With the Cushites Hanani names also פּרשׁים, Libyans (cf. 2Ch 12:3), and besides רכב, the war-chariots, also פּרשׁים osla ,sto, horsemen, in order to portray the enemy rhetorically, while in the historical narrative only the immense number of warriors and the multitude of the chariots is spoken of.

Verse 9

2Ch 16:9 “For Jahve, His eyes run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong with those whose heart is devoted to Him;” i.e., for Jahve, who looks forth over all the earth, uses every opportunity wonderfully to succour those who are piously devoted to Him. עם התחזק, to help mightily, as in 1Ch 11:10. אליו שׁלם עם־לבבם is a relative sentence without the relative אשׁר with עם; cf. 1Ch 15:12. “Thou hast done foolishly, therefore,” scil. because thou hast set thy trust upon men instead of upon Jahve, “for from henceforth there shall be wars to thee” (thou shalt have war). In these words the prophet does not announce to Asa definite wars, but only expresses the general idea that Asa by his godless policy would bring only wars (מלחמות in indefinite universality), not peace, to the kingdom. History confirms the truth of this announcement, although we have no record of any other wars which broke out under Asa.

Verse 10

This sharp speech so angered the king, that he caused the seer to be set in the stock-house. המּהשפכת בּית, properly, house of stocks. מהפּכת, twisting, is an instrument of torture, a stock, by which the body was forced into an unnatural twisted position, the victim perhaps being bent double, with the hands and feet fastened together: cf. Jer 20:2; Jer 29:26; and Act 16:24, ἔβαλεν εἰς τὴν φυλακὴ̀ν καὶ τοὺς πόδας ἠσφαλίσατο αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ ξύλον. “For in wrath against him (scil. he did it) because of this thing, and Asa crushed some of the people at this time.” Clearly Hanani's speech, and still more Asa's harsh treatment of the seer, caused great discontent among the people, at least in the upper classes, so that the king felt himself compelled to use force against them. רצץ, to break or crush, is frequently used along with עשׁק (Deu 28:33; 1Sa 12:3, etc.), and signifies to suppress with violence. Asa had indeed well deserved the censure, Thou hast dealt foolishly. His folly consisted in this, that in order to get help against Baasha's attack, he had had recourse to a means which must become dangerous to him and to his kingdom; for it was not difficult to foresee that the Syrian king Benhadad would turn the superiority to Israel which he had gained against Judah itself. But in order to estimate rightly Asa's conduct, we must consider that it was perhaps an easier thing, in human estimation, to conquer the innumerable multitudes of the Ethiopian hordes than the united forces of the kings of Israel and Syria; and that, notwithstanding the victory over the Ethiopians, yet Asa's army may have been very considerably weakened by that war. But these circumstances are not sufficient to justify Asa. Since he had so manifestly had the help of the Lord in the war against the Cushites, it was at bottom mainly weakness of faith, or want of full trust in the omnipotence of the Lord, which caused him to seek the help of the enemy of God's people, the king of Syria, instead of that of the Almighty God, and to make flesh his arm; and for this he was justly censured by the prophet.

Verse 11

2Ch 16:11The end of Asa's reign; cf. 1Ki 15:23-24. - On 2Ch 16:11, cf. the Introduction.

Verses 12-13

In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa became diseased in his feet, and that in a high degree. The words חיו עד־למעלה are a circumstantial clause: to a high degree was his sickness. “And also in his sickness (as in the war against Baasha) he sought not Jahve, but turned to the physicians.” דּרשׁ is primarily construed with the accus., as usually in connection with יהוה or אלהים, to seek God, to come before Him with prayer and supplication; then with בּ, as usually of an oracle, or seeking help of idols (cf. 1Sa 28:7; 2Ki 1:2.; 1Ch 10:14), and so here of superstitious trust in the physicians. Consequently it is not the mere inquiring of the physicians which is here censured, but only the godless manner in which Asa trusted in the physicians.

Verse 14

The Chronicle gives a more exact account of Asa's burial than 1Ki 15:24. He was buried in the city of David; not in the general tomb of the kings, however, but in a tomb which he had caused to be prepared for himself in that place. And they laid him upon the bed, which had been filled with spices (בּשׂמים, see Exo 30:23), and those of various kinds, mixed for an anointing mixture, prepared. זנים from זן, kind, species; וּזנים, et varia quidem. מרקּח in Piel only here, properly spiced, from רקח, to spice, usually to compound an unguent of various spices. מרקחת, the compounding of ointment; so also 1Ch 9:30, where it is usually translated by unguent. מעשׂה, work, manufacture, is a shortened terminus technicus for רוקח מעשׂה, manufacture of the ointment-compounder (cf. Exo 30:25, Exo 30:35), and the conjecture that רוקח has been dropped out of the text by mistake is unnecessary. “And they kindled for him a great, very great burning,” cf. 2Ch 21:19 and Jer 34:5, whence we gather that the kindling of a burning, i.e., the burning of odorous spices, was customary at the burials of kings. Here it is only remarked that at Asa's funeral an extraordinary quantity of spices was burnt. A burning of the corpse, or of the bed or clothes of the dead, is not to be thought of here: the Israelites were in the habit of burying their dead, not of burning them. That occurred only in extraordinary circumstances-as, for example, in the case of the bodies of Saul and his sons; see on 1Sa 31:12. The kindling and burning of spices at the solemn funerals of persons of princely rank, on the other hand, occurred also among other nations, e.g., among the Romans; cf. Plinii hist. nat. xii. 18, and M. Geier, de luctu Hebr. c. 6.

Chap. 17

Verse 1

Jehoshaphat's Reign - 2 Chronicles 17-20

Jehoshaphat laboured to strengthen the kingdom both within and without. Not only did he place soldiers in the fenced cities, and removed the high places and the Astartes, but sought also to diffuse the knowledge of the law among the people, and by building castles and the possession of a well-equipped army, firmly to establish his power (2 Chron 17). In the course of years he married into the family of Ahab king of Israel, and, while on a visit in Samaria, allowed himself to be persuaded by Ahab to enter upon a joint war against the Syrians at Ramoth in Gilead, in which he all but lost his life, while King Ahab was mortally wounded in the battle (2 Chron 18). Censured on his return to Jerusalem by the prophet Jehu for this alliance with the godless Ahab, he sought still more earnestly to lead back his people to Jahve, the God of their fathers, bestirring himself to bring the administration of justice into a form in accordance with the law of God, and establishing a supreme tribunal in Jerusalem (2Ch 19:1-11). Thereafter, when the Moabites and Ammonites, with the Edomites and other desert tribes, made an inroad into Judah, the Lord gave him a wonderful victory over these enemies. At a later time he yet again allied himself with the Israelitish king Ahaziah for the restoration of the commerce with Ophir; but the ships built for this purpose were broken in the harbour, so that the voyage was abandoned (2 Chron 20). Of all these enterprises of Jehoshaphat, none are mentioned in the book of Kings except the campaign entered upon with Ahab against Ramoth in Gilead, which is found in the history of Ahab, 1 Kings 22:2-35. Jehoshaphat's reign itself is only characterized generally, but in such a way as to agree with the account in the Chronicle; and, in conclusion, the alliance with Ahaz for the purpose of making the voyage to Ophir is shortly narrated in 1Ki 22:41-53, but in a form which differs considerably from that in which it is communicated in the Chronicle.
2Ch 17:1Jehoshaphat's efforts to strengthen the kingdom, internally and externally. - 2Ch 17:1, or rather the first half of this verse, belongs properly to the preceding chapter, since, when the son immediately follows the father on the throne, the successor is mentioned immediately: cf. 2Ch 9:31; 2Ch 12:16; 2Ch 24:27; 2Ch 27:9, etc. Here, however, the account of the accession to the throne is combined with a general remark on the reign of the successor, and therefore it is placed at the commencement of the account of the reign; while in the case of Asa (2Ch 14:1) both come in immediately at the conclusion of the reign of his predecessor. Asa had shown himself weak against Israel, as he had sought help against Baasha's attack from the Syrians (2Ch 16:1.), but it was otherwise with Jehoshaphat. He indeed put the fenced cities of his kingdom in a thoroughly good condition for defence, to protect his kingdom against hostile attacks from without (v. 20: but he walked at the same time in the ways of the Lord, so that the Lord made his kingdom strong and mighty (2Ch 17:3-5). This general characterization of his reign is in 2Ch 17:6 illustrated by facts: first by the communication of what Jehoshaphat did for the inner spiritual strengthening of the kingdom, by raising the standard of religion and morals among the people (2Ch 17:6-11), and then by what he did for the external increase of his power (2Ch 17:12-19).

Verses 2-4

He placed forces (חיל) in all the fenced cities of Judah, and garrisons (נציבים, military posts; cf. 1Ch 11:16) in the land of Judah, and in the cities of Ephraim, which is father Asa had taken; cf. 2Ch 15:8. God blessed these undertakings. Jahve was with him, because he walked in the ways of David his ancestor, the former ways, and sought not the Baals. The former ways of David are his ways in the earlier years of his reign, in contrast to the later years, in which his adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11) and the sin of numbering the people (1 Chron 21) fall. הבּעלים are all false gods, in contrast to Jahve, the one God of Israel; and here the word designates not only the Baal-worship properly so called, but also the worship of Jahve by means of images, by which Jahve is brought down to the level of the Baals; cf. Jdg 2:11. The ל before בּעלים stands, according to the later usage, as a sign of the accusative. In the last clause of 2Ch 17:4, “and not after the doings of Israel” (of the ten tribes), הלך, “he walked,” is to be repeated. The doing of Israel is the worship of Jahve through the images of the golden calves, which the author of the Chronicle includes in the לבּעלים דּרשׁ.

Verse 5

Therefore Jahve established the kingdom in his hand, i.e., under his rule; cf. 2Ki 14:5. All Judah brought him presents. מנחה, often used of tribute of subject peoples, e.g., in 2Ch 17:11 of the Philistines, cannot here have that signification; nor can it denote the regular imposts of subjects, for these are not called מנחה; but must denote voluntary gifts which his subjects brought him as a token of their reverence and love. The last clause, “and there was to him (he attained) riches and honour in abundance,” which is repeated 2Ch 18:1, recalls 1Ch 29:28; 2Ch 1:12, and signifies that Jehoshaphat, like his ancestors David and Solomon, was blessed for walking in the pious ways of these his forefathers.

Verse 6

This blessing encouraged Jehoshaphat to extirpate from the land all idolatrous worship, and to teach the people the law of the Lord. לב נּבהּ, usually sensu malo, to be haughty, proud, cf. e.g., 2Ch 26:16; 2Ch 32:25; here sensu bono, of rising courage to advance in ways pleasing to God: and he removed the high places also, etc. עוד points back to 2Ch 17:3 : not only did he himself keep far from the Baals, but he removed, besides, all memorials of the Baal-worship from Judah. On בּמות and אשׁרים, see on 2Ch 14:2.

Verses 7-9

In the third year of his reign he sent five princes, i.e., laymen of high position, with nine Levites and two priests, into the cities of Judah, with the book of the law, to teach the law everywhere to the people. בּן־חיל is nom. prop., like בּן־חסד,   1Ki 4:10, בּן־דּקר,   1Ki 4:9, and is not to be translated as an adjective, as in lxx and Syr., partly on account of the ל praef., and still more on account of the singular, for the plural חיל בּני must be used when it is in apposition to לשׂרי. Nothing further is known of the men named; the designation of them as שׂרים suggests the idea that they were heads of families or fathers'-houses. אדוניּה טוב, too (2Ch 17:8), is one name. The “book of the law of Jahve” is the Pentateuch, not merely a collection of Mosaic laws, since in Jehoshaphat's time the Mosaic book of the law (the Pentateuch) had been long in existence. יהוּדה בּערי סבב signifies to go through the cities of Judah in different directions; baa`aam limeed, to teach among the people (not the people). The mission of these men is called by the older theologians a solemn ecclesiarum visitatio, quam Josaphat laudabili exemplo per universum regnum suum instituit, and they differ in opinion only as to the part played by the princes in it. Vitringa, de synagoga vet. p. 389, in agreement with Rashi, thinks that only the Levites and priests were deputed ut docerent; the princes, ut auctoritate imperioque suo populum erudiendum in officio continerent eumque de seria regis voluntate certiorem facerent; while others, e.g., Buddaeus, refer to 2Ch 17:9, ubi principes pariter ac Levitae populum docuisse dicuntur, or believe with Grotius, docere et explicare legem non tantum sacerdotum erat et Levitarum, sed omnium eruditorum. Both views contain elements of truth, and do not mutually exclude each other, but may be harmonized. We can hardly confine למּד to religious teaching. The Mosaic law contains a number of merely civil precepts, as to which laymen learned in the law might impart instruction; and consequently the teaching probably consisted not merely in making the people acquainted with the contents of the law, but at the same time of direction and guidance in keeping the law, and generally in restoring and confirming the authority of the law among the people. In connection with this there were many abuses and illegalities which had to be broken down and removed; so that in this respect the task of the commission sent round the country by Jehoshaphat may be compared to a church inspection, if only we understand thereby not an inspection of churches in the Christian sense of the words, but an inspection of the religious and moral life of the communities of Israel under the old covenant.

Verses 10-11

This attempt of Jehoshaphat brought him this blessing, that the terror of Jahve fell upon all the surrounding kingdoms; and not only did none of the neighbouring peoples venture to make war upon him, but also various tribes did homage to him by presents. Ramb. has already so understood the connection of these verses (erat hoc praemium pietatis Josaphati, quod vicini satisque potentes hostes non auderent adversus ipsum hiscere); while Berth. fails to apprehend it, saying that Jehoshaphat had time to care for the instruction of his people, because at that time the neighbouring peoples did not venture to undertake war against Judah. The words “terror of Jahve,” cf. 2Ch 14:13; 2Ch 20:29, and “all the kingdoms of the lands,” cf. 2Ch 12:8, 1Ch 29:30, are expressions peculiar to the author of the Chronicle, which show that by these remarks he is preparing the way for a transition to a more detailed portrayal of Jehoshaphat's political power. מן־פּלשׁתּים is subject, מן partitive: some of the Philistines brought him presents (for מנחה see on 2Ch 17:5), “and silver a burden,” i.e., in great quantity. משּׂא does not signify tribute, vectigal argento (Vulg.), for the word has not that signification, but denotes burden, that which can be carried, as in משּׂא לאן,   2Ch 20:25. - ערביאים or ערביּים, 2Ch 26:7, and more usually ערבים, 2Ch 21:16; 2Ch 22:1, are Arabian nomadic tribes (Bedâwin), perhaps those whom Asa, after his victory over the Cushite Zerah, had brought under the kingdom of Judah, 2Ch 14:14. These paid their tribute in small cattle, rams, and he-goats. (תּישׁים, Gen 30:35; Gen 32:15; Pro 30:31.)

Verse 12

2Ch 17:12Description of Jehoshaphat's power. - 2Ch 17:12. And Jehoshaphat became ever greater, sc. in power. The partic. הולך expresses the continuous advance in greatness, cf. Ew. §280, b, as the infin. absol. does elsewhere, e.g., Gen 8:3. למעלה עד as in 2Ch 16:12. - He built castles in Judah. בּירניּות, only here and in 2Ch 27:4, from בּירנית, derivative formed from בּירה by the Syriac termination נית-, fem. of  ן-: castle, fortress. On מסכּנות ערי cf. 2Ch 8:4.

Verse 13

2Ch 17:13 וגו רבּה וּמלעכה is rightly translated by Luther, “und hatte viel Vorraths” (and had much store). מלעכה denotes here, as in Exo 22:7-10, property, that which has been gained by work or business. The signification, much work, opera magna (Vulg., Cler., etc.), as also Bertheau's translation, “the works for equipping and provisioning the fortresses,” correspond neither to the context nor to the parallel (synonymous) second member of the verse. The work and trouble necessary to equip the cities of Judah does not correspond to “the valiant warriors in Jerusalem;” the only parallel is the goods and property which were in these cities, the provision of victuals and war material there stored up.

Verses 14-16

The men fit for war passed in review according to their fathers'-houses. The male population of Judah fell into three divisions, that of Benjamin into two. The prince Adnah held the first place among the generals, with 300,000 men of Judah. ידו על, at his hand, i.e., with and under him, Jehohanan had the command of 280,000 men, and Amasiah over 200,000. השׂר is a contraction for אלפים שׂר. For what special reason it is so honourably recorded of Amasiah that he had willingly offered himself to the Lord (cf. for התנדּב, Jdg 5:9) has not been communicated.

Verses 17-18

The Benjamites fell into two detachments: archers with shields (cf. 1Ch 8:40) 200,000 men, under the chief command of Eliada, and “equipped of the army,” i.e., not heavy armed (Berth.), but provided with the usual weapons, sword, spear, and shield (cf. 1Ch 12:24), 180,000 under the command of Jehozabad. According to this statement, Judah had 780,000 warriors capable of bearing arms. These numbers are clearly too large, and bear no proportion to the result of the numbering of the people capable of bearing arms under David, when there were in Judah only 500,000 or 470,000 men (cf. 1Ch 21:5 with 2Sa 24:5); yet the sums of the single divisions appear duly proportioned-a fact which renders it more difficult to believe that these exaggerated numbers are the result of orthographical errors.

Verse 19

These were serving the king. אלּה refers not to the above-mentioned men capable of bearing arms, for sheereet is not used of service in war, but to the commanders whom he had placed in the fortified cities of all Judah, “in which probably bodies of the above-mentioned troops lay as garrisons” (Berth.).

Chap. 18

Verse 1

2Ch 18:1Jehoshaphat's marriage alliance with Ahab, and his campaign with Ahab against the Syrians at Ramoth in Gilead. - 2Ch 18:1. Jehoshaphat came into connection by marriage with Ahab through his son Joram taking Athaliah, a daughter of Ahab, to wife (2Ch 21:6); an event which did not take place on the visit made by Jehoshaphat to Ahab in his palace at Samaria, and recorded in 2Ch 18:2, but which had preceded that by about nine years. That visit falls in the beginning of the year in which Ahab was mortally wounded at Ramoth, and died, i.e., the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat's reign. But at that time Ahaziah, the son of Joram and Athaliah, was already from eight to nine years old, since thirteen years later he became king at the age of twenty-two; 2Ki 8:26, cf. with the chronol. table to 1 Kings 12. The marriage connection is mentioned in order to account for Jehoshaphat's visit to Samaria (2Ch 18:2), and his alliance with Ahab in the war against the Syrians; but it is also introduced by a reference to Jehoshaphat's riches and his royal splendour, repeated from 2Ch 17:5. In the opinion of many commentators, this is stated to account for Ahab's willingness to connect his family by marriage with that of Jehoshaphat. This opinion might be tenable were it Ahab's entering upon a marriage connection with Jehoshaphat which is spoken of; but for Jehoshaphat, of whom it is related that he entered into a marriage connection with Ahab, his own great wealth could not be a motive for his action in that matter. If we consider, first, that this marriage connection was very hurtful to the kingdom of Judah and the royal house of David, since Athaliah not only introduced the Phoenician idolatry into the kingdom, but also at the death of Ahaziah extirpated all the royal seed of the house of David, only the infant Joash of all the royal children being saved by the princess, a sister of Ahaziah, who was married to the high priest Jehoiada (2Ch 22:10-12); and, second, that Jehoshaphat was sharply censured by the prophet for his alliance with the criminal Ahab (2Ch 19:2.), and had, moreover, all but forfeited his life in the war (2Ch 18:34.), - we see that the author of the Chronicle can only have regarded the marriage connection between Jehoshaphat and Ahab as a mistake. By introducing this account of it by a second reference to Jehoshaphat's riches and power, he must therefore have intended to hint that Jehoshaphat had no need to enter into this relationship with the idolatrous house of Ahab, but had acted very inconsiderately in doing so. Schmidt has correctly stated the contents of the verse thus: Josaphatus cetera dives et gloriosus infelicem adfinitatem cum Achabo, rege Israelis, contrahit. With which side the proposals for thus connecting the two royal houses originated we are not anywhere informed. Even if the conjecture of Ramb., that Ahab proposed it to Jehoshaphat, be not well founded, yet so much is beyond doubt, namely, that Ahab not only desired the alliance, but also promoted it by every means in his power, since it must have been of great importance to him to gain in Jehoshaphat a strong ally against the hostile pressure of the Syrians. Jehoshaphat probably entered upon the alliance bono animo et spe firmandae inter duo regna pacis (Ramb.), without much thought of the dangers which a connection of this sort with the idolatrous Ahab and with Jezebel might bring upon his kingdom.

Verses 2-34

2Ch 18:2-34The campaign undertaken along with Ahab against the Syrians at Ramoth in Gilead, with its origin, course, and results for Ahab, is narrated in 1 Kings (in the history of Ahab) in agreement with our narrative, only the introduction to the war being different here. In 1Ki 22:1-3 it is remarked, in connection with the preceding wars of Ahab with the Syrians, that after there had been no war for three years between Aram and Israel, in the third year Jehoshaphat king of Judah came up to the king of Israel; and the latter, when he and his servants had determined to snatch away from the Syrians the city Ramoth in Gilead, which belonged to Israel, called upon Jehoshaphat to march with him to the war against Ramoth. In the Chronicle the more exact statement, “in the third year,” which is intelligible only in connection with the earlier history of Ahab, is exchanged for the indefinite שׁנים לקץ, “at the end of years;” and mention is made of the festal entertainment which Ahab bestowed upon his guest and his train (עמּו אשׁר העם), to show the pains which Ahab took to induce King Jehoshaphat to take part in the proposed campaign. He killed sheep and oxen for him in abundance, ויסיתהוּ ,ecnadn, and enticed, seduced him to go up with him to Ramoth. הסית, to incite, entice to anything (Jdg 1:14), frequently to evil; cf. Deu 13:7, etc. עלה, to advance upon a land or a city in a warlike sense. The account which follows of the preparations for the campaign by inquiring of prophets, and of the war itself, vv. 4-34, is in almost verbal agreement with 1 Kings 22:5-35. Referring to 1 Kings for the commentary on the substance of the narrative, we will here only group together briefly the divergences. Instead of 400 men who were prophets, 2Ch 18:5, in 1Ki 22:5 we have about 400 men. It is a statement in round numbers, founded not upon exact enumeration, but upon an approximate estimate. Instead of אהדּל אם...הנלך, 2Ch 18:5, in Kings, 1Ki 22:6, we have אהדּל אם...האלך, both verbs being in the same number; and so too in 2Ch 18:14, where in Kings. 1Ki 22:15, both verbs stand in the plural, notwithstanding that the answer which follows, והצלח עלה, is addressed to Ahab alone, not to both the kings, while in the Chronicle the answer is given in the plural to both the kings, והצליחוּ עלוּ. in 2Ch 18:7, “he prophesies me nothing good, but all his days (i.e., so long as he has been a prophet) evil,” the meaning is intensified by the כּל־ימיו, which is not found in 1Ki 22:8. In 2Ch 18:9, the ויושׁבים, which is introduced before the בּגרן, “and sitting upon the threshing-floor,” is due to difference of style, for it is quite superfluous for the signification. In 2Ch 18:15, the ambiguous words of Micah,' and Jahve will give into the hand of the king” (1Ki 22:15), are given in a more definite form: “and they (the enemy) shall be given into your hand.” In 2Ch 18:19, in the first כּכה אמר זה, the אמר after the preceding ויּאמר is not only superfluous, but improper, and has probably come into the text by a copyist's error. We should therefore read only בּכה זה, corresponding to the כּכה זה of 1Ki 22:20 : “Then spake one after this manner, and the other spake after another manner.” In 2Ch 18:23, the indefinite אי־זה of 1Ki 22:24, is elucidated by הדּרך זה אי, “is that the manner” (cf. 1Ki 13:12; 2Ki 3:8)., and the verb. עבר follows without the relative pronoun, as in the passages cited. In 2Ch 18:30, only הרכב שׂרי of the king are mentioned, without any statement of the number, which is given in 1Ki 22:31, with a backward reference to the former war (1Ki 20:24). In 2Ch 18:31, after the words, “and Jehoshaphat cried out,” the higher cause of Jehoshaphat's rescue is pointed out in the words, “and Jahve helped him, and God drove them from him,” which are not found in 1Ki 22:32; but by this religious reflection the actual course of the event is in no way altered. Bertheau's remark, therefore, that “the words disturb the clear connection of the events,” is quite unwarrantable. Finally, in 2Ch 18:34, מעמיד היה, he was holding his position, i.e., he held himself standing upright, the Hiph. is more expressive than the Hoph. מעמד (1Ki 22:35), since it expresses more definitely the fact that he held himself upright by his own strength. With Ahab's death, which took place in the evening at the time of the going down of the sun, the author of the Chronicle concludes his account of this war, and proceeds in 2Ch 19:1-11 to narrate the further course of Jehoshaphat's reign. In 1Ki 22:36-39, the return of the defeated army, and the details as to Ahab's death and burial, are recorded; but these did not fit into the plan of the Chronicle.

Chap. 19

Verses 1-3

2Ch 19:1-3The prophet Jehu's declaration as to Jehoshaphat's alliance with Ahab, and Jehoshaphat's further efforts to promote the fear of God and the administration of justice in Judah. - 2Ch 19:1-3. Jehu's declaration. Jehoshaphat returned from the war in which Ahab had lost his life, בּשׁלום, i.e., safe, uninjured, to his house in Jerusalem; so that the promise of Micah in 2Ch 18:16 was fulfilled also as regards him. But on his return, the seer Jehu, the son of Hanani, who had been thrown into the stocks by Asa (2Ch 16:7.), met him with the reproving word, “Should one help the wicked, and lovest thou the haters of Jahve!” (the inf. with ל, as in 1Ch 5:1; 1Ch 9:25, etc.). Of these sins Jehoshaphat had been guilty. “And therefore is anger from Jahve upon thee” (על קצף as in 1Ch 27:24). Jehoshaphat had already had experience of this wrath, when in the battle of Ramoth the enemy pressed upon him (2Ch 18:31), and was at a later time to have still further experience of it, partly during his own life, when the enemy invaded his land (2 Chron 20), and when he attempted to re-establish the sea trade with Ophir (2Ch 20:35.), partly after his death in his family (2 Chron 21 and 2Ch 22:1-12). “But,” continues Jehu, to console him, “yet there are good things found in thee (cf. 2Ch 12:12), for thou hast destroyed the Asheroth...” אשׁרות = אשׁרים, 2Ch 17:6. On these last words, comp. 2Ch 12:14 and 2Ch 17:4.

Verse 4

2Ch 19:4Jehoshaphat's further arrangements for the revival of the Jahve-worship, and the establishment of a proper administration of justice. - The first two clauses in 2Ch 19:4 are logically connected thus: When Jehoshaphat (after his return from the war) sat (dwelt) in Jerusalem, he again went forth (ויּצא ויּשׁב are to be taken together) among the people, from Beersheba, the southern frontier (see 1Ch 21:2), to Mount Ephraim, the northern frontier of the kingdom of Judah, and brought them back to Jahve, the God of the fathers. The “again” (ישׁב) can refer only to the former provision for the instruction of the people, recorded in 2Ch 17:7.; all that was effected by the commission which Jehoshaphat had sent throughout the land being regarded as his work. The instruction of the people in the law was intended to lead them back to the Lord. Jehoshaphat now again took up his work of reformation, in order to complete the work he had begun, by ordering and improving the administration of justice.

Verses 5-7

He set judges in the land, in all the fenced cities of Judah; they, as larger cities, being centres of communication for their respective neighbourhoods, and so best suited to be the seats of judges. ועיר לעיר, in reference to every city, as the law (Deu 16:18) prescribed. He laid it upon the consciences of these judges to administer justice conscientiously. “Not for men are ye to judge, but for Jahve;” i.e., not on the appointment and according to the will of men, but in the name and according to the will of the Lord (cf. Pro 16:11). In the last clause of 2Ch 19:6, Jahve is to be supplied from the preceding context: “and Jahve is with you in judgment,” i.e., in giving your decisions (cf. the conclusion of 2Ch 19:11); whence this clause, of course, only serves to strengthen the foregoing, only contains the thoughts already expressed in the law, that judgment belongs to God (cf. Deu 1:17 with Exo 21:6; Exo 22:7.). Therefore the fear of the Lord should keep the judges from unrighteousness, so that they should neither allow themselves to be influenced by respect of persons, nor to be bribed by gifts, against which Deu 16:19 and Deu 1:17 also warns. ועשׂוּ שׁמרוּ is rightly paraphrased by the Vulgate, cum diligentia cuncta facite. The clause, “With God there is no respect of persons,” etc., recalls Deu 10:17.

Verses 8-11

Besides this, Jehoshaphat established at Jerusalem a supreme tribunal for the decision of difficult cases, which the judges of the individual cities could not decide. 2Ch 19:8. “Moreover, in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set certain of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chiefs of the fathers'-houses of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies (לריב).” From this clause Berth. correctly draws the conclusion, that as in Jerusalem, so also in the fenced cities (2Ch 19:5), it was Levites, priests, and heads of the fathers'-houses who were made judges. This conclusion is not inconsistent with the fact that David appointed 6000 of the Levites to be shoterim and judges; for it does not follow from that that none but Levites were appointed judges, but only that the Levites were to perform an essential part in the administration of the law. The foundation of the judicial body in Israel was the appointment of judges chosen from the elders of the people (Exo 18:21.; Deu 1:15.) by Moses, at Jethro's instigation, and under the divine sanction, David had no intention, by his appointment of some thousands of Levites to be officials (writers) and judges, to set aside the Mosaic arrangement; on the contrary, he thereby gave it the expansion which the advanced development of the kingdom required. For the simple relationships of the Mosaic time, the appointment of elders to be judges might have been sufficient; but when in the course of time, especially after the introduction of the kingship, the social and political relations became more complicated, it is probable that the need of appointing men with special skill in law, to co-operate with the judges chosen from among the elders, in order that justice might be administered in a right way, and in a manner corresponding to the law, made itself increasingly felt; that consequently David had felt himself called upon to appoint a greater number of Levites to this office, and that from that time forward the courts in the larger cities were composed of Levites and elders. The supreme court which Jehoshaphat set up in Jerusalem was established on a similar basis. For יהוה למשׁפּט we have in 2Ch 19:11 דּבר־יהוה לכל, i.e., for all matters connected with religion and the worship and instead of קריב we have המּלך דּבר לכל, for every matter of the king, i.e., for all civil causes. The last clause, 2Ch 19:8, ירוּשׁלים ויּשׁבוּ, cannot signify that the men called to this supreme tribunal went to Jerusalem to dwell there thenceforth (Ramb., etc.), or that the suitors went thither; for שׁוּב does not denote to betake oneself to a place, but to return, which cannot be said of the persons above named, since it is not said that they had left Jerusalem. With Kimchi and others, we must refer the words to the previous statement in 2Ch 19:4, וגו בּעם ויּצא, and understand them as a supplementary statement, that Jehoshaphat and those who had gone forth with him among the people returned to Jerusalem, which would have come in more fittingly at the close of 2Ch 19:7, and is to be rendered: “when they had returned to Jerusalem.” The bringing in of this remark at so late a stage of the narrative, only after the establishment of the supreme tribunal has been mentioned, is explained by supposing that the historian was induced by the essential connection between the institution of the supreme court and the arrangement of the judicatories in the provincial cities, to leave out of consideration the order of time in describing the arrangements made by Jehoshaphat.

Verses 9-11

To the members of the superior tribunal also, Jehoshaphat gave orders to exercise their office in the fear of the Lord, with fidelity and with upright heart (שׁלם בּלבב, corde s. animo integro, cf. 2Ch 15:17; 2Ch 16:9). תעשׂוּן כּה, thus shall ye do; what they are to do being stated only in 2Ch 19:10. The w before כּל־ריב is explicative, namely, and is omitted by the lxx and Vulg. as superfluous. “Every cause which comes to you from your brethren who dwell in their cities” (and bring causes before the superior court in the following cases): between blood and blood (בּין with ל following, as in Gen 1:6, etc.), i.e., in criminal cases of murder and manslaughter, and between law and between command, statutes, and judgments, i.e., in cases where the matter concerns the interpretation and application of the law, and its individual commands, statutes, and judgments, to particular crimes; wherever, in short, there is any doubt by what particular provision of the law the case in hand should be decided. With והזהרתּם the apodosis commences, but it is an anacolouthon. Instead of “ye shall give them instruction therein,” we have, “ye shall teach them (those who bring the cause before you), that they incur not guilt, and an anger (i.e., God's anger and punishment) come upon you and your brethren” (cf. 2Ch 19:2). הזהיר, properly to illuminate, metaphorically to teach, with the additional idea of exhortation or warning. The word is taken from Exo 18:20, and there is construed c. accus. pers. et rei. This construction is here also the underlying one, since the object which precedes in the absolute is to be taken as accus.: thus, and as regards every cause, ye shall teach them concerning it. After the enumeration of the matters falling within the jurisdiction of this court, תעשׂוּן כּה is repeated, and this precept is then pressed home upon the judges by the words, “that ye incur not guilt.” Thereafter (in 2Ch 19:11) Jehoshaphat nominates the spiritual and civil presidents of this tribunal: for spiritual causes the high priest Amariah, who is not the same as the Amariah mentioned after Zadok as the fifth high priest (1Ch 6:11); in civil causes Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the prince of the house of Judah, i.e., tribal prince of Judah. These shall be עליכם over you, i.e., presidents of the judges; and שׁטרים, writers, shall the Levites be לפניכם, before you, i.e., as your assistants and servants. Jehoshaphat concludes the nomination of the judicial staff with the encouraging words, “Be strong (courageous) and do,” i.e., go to work with good heart, “and the Lord be with the good,” i.e., with him who discharges the duties of his office well.
The establishment of this superior court was in form, indeed, the commencement of a new institution; but in reality it was only the expansion or firmer organization of a court of final appeal already provided by Moses, the duties of which had been until then performed partly by the high priest, partly by the existing civil heads of the people (the judges and kings). When Moses, at Horeb, set judges over the people, he commanded them to bring to him the matters which were too difficult for them to decide, that he might settle them according to decisions obtained of God (Exo 18:26 and Exo 18:19). At a later time he ordained (Deu 17:8.) that for the future the judges in the various districts and cities should bring the more difficult cases to the Levitic priests and the judge at the place where the central sanctuary was, and let them be decided by them. In thus arranging, he presupposes that Israel would have at all times not only a high priest who might ascertain the will of God by means of the Urim and Thummim, but also a supreme director of its civil affairs at the place of the central sanctuary, who, in common with the priests, i.e., the high priest, would give decisions in cases of final appeal (see the commentary on Deu 17:8-13). On the basis of these Mosaic arrangements, Jehoshaphat set up a supreme court in Jerusalem, with the high priest and a lay president at its head, for the decision of causes which up till that time the king, either alone with the cooperation of the high priest, had decided. For further information as to this supreme court, see in my bibl. Archäol. ii. S. 250f.

Chap. 20

Verse 1

By אהרי־כן, postea, the war which follows is made to fall in the latter part of Jehoshaphat's reign, but certainly not in the last year in which he reigned alone, two years before his death, but only somewhat later than the events in 2 Chron 18 and 2Ch 19:1-11, which occurred six or seven years before his death. Along with the Moabites and Ammonites there marched against Jehoshaphat also מהעמּונים. This statement is obscure. Since מן has unquestionably a partitive or local signification, we might take the word to signify, enemies who dwelt aside from the Ammonites (מן as in 1Sa 20:22, 1Sa 20:37), which might possibly be the designation of tribes in the Syro-Arabic desert bordering upon the country of the Ammonites on the north and east; and מארם in 2Ch 20:2 would seem to favour this idea. But 2Ch 20:10 and 2Ch 20:22. are scarcely reconcilable with this interpretation, since there, besides or along with the sons of Ammon and Moab, inhabitants of Mount Seir are named as enemies who had invaded Judah. Now the Edomites dwelt on Mount Seir; but had the Edomites only been allies of the Ammonites and Moabites, we should expect simply אדם בּני or אדומים, or שׂעיר בּני (cf. 2Ch 25:11, 2Ch 25:14). Nor can it be denied that the interpretation which makes מהעמּונים to denote peoples dwelling beyond the Ammonites is somewhat artificial and far-fetched. Under these circumstances, the alteration proposed by Hiller in Onomast. p. 285 commends itself, viz., the change of מהעמונים into מהמּעוּנים, Maunites or Maonites, - a tribe whose headquarters were the city Maan in the neighbourhood of Petra, to the east of the Wady Musa; see on 1Ch 4:41. Maan lay upon Mount Seir, i.e., in the mountainous district to the west of the Arabah, which stretches upwards from the head of the Dead Sea to the Elanitic Gulf, now called Jebâl (Gebalene) in its northern part, and es-Sherah in the south. The Maunites were consequently inhabitants of Mount Seir, and are here mentioned instead of the Edomites, as being a people dwelling on the southern side of the mountain, and probably of non-Edomitic origin, in order to express the idea that not merely the Edomites took part in the campaign of the Ammonites and Moabites, but also tribes from all parts of Mount Seir. In 2Ch 26:7 the מעוּנים are mentioned along with Arabs and Philistines as enemies of Israel, who had been conquered by Uzziah. These circumstances favour the proposed alteration; while, on the contrary, the fact that the lxx have here ἐκ τῶν Μιναίων for מהעמּונים proves little, since these translators have rendered העמּונים in 2Ch 26:8 also by οἱ Μιναῖοι, there erroneously making the Ammonites Minaiites.

Verse 2

Then they came and announced to Jehoshaphat, sc. messengers or fugitives; the subject is indefinite, and is to be supplied from the context. “Against thee there cometh a great multitude from beyond the (Dead) sea.” מארם also has no suitable sense here, since in the whole narrative nothing is said of enemies coming out of Syria; we should read מאדם with Calmet and others. As the enemy made their attack from the south end of the Dead Sea, the messengers announce that they were come from Edom. “Behold, they are in Hazazon-tamar,” i.e., Engedi, the present Ain Jidy, midway along the west coast of the Dead Sea (see on Jos 15:62 and Gen 14:7), about fifteen hours from Jerusalem.

Verses 3-4

This report filled Jehoshaphat with fear, and he resolved to seek help of the Lord. ??????? נתן = שׂוּם , cf. 2Ki 12:18; Jer 42:15, to direct the face to anything, i.e., to purpose something, come to a determination. He proclaimed a fast in all Judah, that the people might bow themselves before God, and supplicate His help, as was wont to be done in great misfortunes; cf. Jdg 20:26; 1Sa 7:6; Isa 2:15. In consequence of the royal appeal, Judah came together to seek of the Lord, i.e., to pray for help, by fasting and prayer in the temple; and it was not only the inhabitants of Jerusalem who thus assembled, for they came out of all the cities of the kingdom. מיהוה בּקּשׁ, to seek of the Lord, sc. help, is expressed in the last clause by את־יהוה בּקּשׁ to seek the Lord.

Verse 5

When the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem had assembled themselves in the house of God, Jehoshaphat came forth before the new court and made supplication in fervent prayer to the Lord. The new court is the outer or great court of the temple, which Solomon had built (2Ch 4:9). It is here called the new court, probably because it had been restored or extended under Jehoshaphat or Asa. This court was the place where the congregation assembled before God in the sanctuary. Jehoshaphat placed himself before it, i.e., at the entrance into the court of the priests, so that the congregation stood opposite to him.

Verses 6-7

The prayer which Jehoshaphat directed to Jahve the God of the fathers, as the almighty Ruler over all kingdoms, consists of a short representation of the circumstances of the case. Jahve had given the land to His people Israel for an everlasting possession, and Israel had built a sanctuary to His name therein (2Ch 20:7 and 2Ch 20:8); but they had in no way provoked the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites to fall upon them, and to drive them out of their land (2Ch 20:10 and 2Ch 20:11). On these two facts Jehoshaphat founds his prayer for help, in a twofold manner: in respect to the first, calling to mind the divine promise to hear the prayers offered up to God in the temple (2Ch 20:9); and in reference to the second, laying emphasis upon the inability of Israel to fight against so numerous an enemy (2Ch 20:12). In his manner of addressing Jahve, “God of our fathers,” there is contained a reason why God should protect His people in their present distress. Upon Him, who had given the land to the fathers for a possession, it was incumbent to maintain the children in the enjoyment of it, if they had not forfeited it by their sins. Now Jahve as a covenant God was bound to do this, and also as God and ruler of heaven and earth He had the requisite power and might; cf. Psa 115:3. להתיצּב עמּך אין, there is none with Thee who could set himself, i.e., could withstand Thee: cf. the similar phrase, 2Ch 14:10; and for the thought, see 1Ch 29:12. - On 2Ch 20:7, cf. Jos 23:9; Jos 24:12; Exo 23:20., etc.; on 2Ch 20:7, cf. Gen 13:15., 2Ch 15:18, etc.; on אהבך, Isa 41:8.

Verses 8-9

In this land they dwelt, and built Thee therein a sanctuary for Thy name; cf. 2Ch 6:5, 2Ch 6:8. לאמר, saying, i.e., at the consecration of this house, having expressed the confident hope contained in the following words (2Ch 20:9). In this verse, the cases enumerated in Solomon's dedicatory prayer, in which supplication is made that God would hear in the temple, are briefly summed up. By referring to that prayer, Jehoshaphat presupposes that Jahve had promised that He would answer prayer offered there, since He had filled the temple with His glory; see 2Ch 7:1-3. The name שׁפות, which occurs only here, between דּבר and חרב, denotes in this connection a punitive judgment.

Verses 10-12

2Ch 20:10-12 ועתּה, and now, the contrary of this has occurred. Peoples into whose midst (בהם לבוא...אשׁר) Thou didst not allow Israel to come, i.e., into whose land Thou didst not allow Israel to enter when they came out of the land of Egypt, for they (the Israelites under Moses) turned from them and destroyed them not (cf. as to the fact, Num 20:14.; Deu 2:4; Deu 9:19); behold, these peoples recompense us by coming to cast us out of our possession which Thou hast given us (הורישׁ, to give as a possession, as in Jdg 11:24). There follows hereupon in 2Ch 20:12 the prayer: “Our God, wilt Thou not judge,” i.e., do right upon them, for we have not strength before (to withstand) this multitude? We know not what to do, sc. against so many enemies; but our eyes are turned to Thee, i.e., to Thee we look for help; cf. Psa 123:2; Psa 141:8.

Verse 13

Thus all Judah, with their king, stood praying before the Lord. They had, moreover, brought with them their little ones, their wives, and their sons, to pray for deliverance for them from the enemy; cf. Judith 4:9. ==Verse 14==
The Lord's answer by the prophet Jahaziel. - 2Ch 20:14. In the midst of the assembly the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel, a Levite of the sons of Asaph, and promised miraculous assistance to king and people. Jahaziel's descent is traced back for five generations to the Levite Mattaniah of the sons of Asaph. This Mattaniah is not the same person as the Mattaniah in 1Ch 25:4, 1Ch 25:16, who lived in David's time, for he belonged to the sons of Heman; but perhaps (as Movers conjectures, S. 112) he is identical with the Asaphite Nethaniah, 1Ch 25:2, 1Ch 25:12, since מ and נ might easily be confounded.

Verse 15

Jehaziel announced to the king and people that they need not fear before the great multitude of their foes; “for the war is not yours, but Jahve's,” i.e., you have not to make war upon them, for the Lord will do it; cf. 1Sa 17:47.

Verse 16

2Ch 20:16 “To-morrow go ye down against them: behold, they come up by the height Hazziz; and ye will find them at the end of the valley, before the desert Jeruel.” The wilderness Jeruel was, without doubt, the name of a part of the great stretch of flat country, bounded on the south by the Wady el Ghâr, and extending from the Dead Sea to the neighbourhood of Tekoa, which is now called el Hasasah, after a wady on its northern side. The whole country along the west side of the Dead Sea, “where it does not consist of mountain ridges or deep valley, is a high table-land, sloping gradually towards the east, wholly waste, merely covered here and there with a few bushes, and without the slightest trace of having ever been cultivated” (Robinson's Pal. sub voce). The name הצּיץ מעלה, ascent or height of Hazziz, has perhaps remained attached to the Wady el Hasasah. lxx have rendered הצּיץ by Ἀσσεῖς; Josephus (Antt. ix. 1. 2) has ἀναβάσεως λεγομένης ἐξοχῆς, in accordance with which Robinson (loc. cit.) takes the way “upwards from Ziz” to be the pass which at present leads from Ain Jidy to the table-land. Yet it is described by him as a “fearful pass,”^[10] and it can hardly be thought of here, even if the enemy, like the Bedouins now when on their forays, may be supposed to have marched along the shore of the sea, and ascended to the table-land only at Engedi; for the Israelites did not meet the enemy in this ascent, but above upon the table-land. Josephus' translation of הצּיץ by ἐξοχή is also very questionable, for it is not necessary that the ה should be the article (Ew. Gesch. iii. S. 475, der 2 Aufl.).

Verse 17

Ye have not to fight therein (בּזאת); only come hither, stand and see the help of the Lord (who is) with you. You need do nothing more, and therefore need not fear.

Verses 18-19

For this comforting assurance the king and people thanked the Lord, falling down in worship before Him, whereupon the Levites stood up to praise God with a loud voice. Levites “of the sons of Kohath, yea, of the Korahites,” for they were descended from Kohath (1Ch 6:22).

Verses 20-21

The fulfilment of the divine promise. - 2Ch 20:20. On the next morning the assembled men of Judah marched, in accordance with the words of the prophet, to the wilderness of Tekoa. As they marched forth, Jehoshaphat stood, probably in the gate of Jerusalem, where those about to march forth were assembled, and called upon them to trust firmly in the Lord and His prophets (האמינוּ and תּאמנוּ, as in Isa 7:9). After he had thus counselled the people (אל יוּעץ, shown himself a counsellor; cf. 2Ki 6:8), he ordered them to march, not for battle, but to assure themselves of the wonderful help of the Lord. He placed singers of the Lord (ל before יהוה as a periphrasis for the genitive), singing praise in holy ornaments, in the marching forth before the army, and saying; i.e., he commanded the Levitic singers to march out before the army, singing and playing in holy ornaments (להדרת־ק, clad in holy ornaments, = בּהדרת in 1Ch 16:29; cf. Ew. §217, a), to praise the Lord for the help He had vouchsafed.

Verses 22-23

And at the time when they (having come into the neighbourhood of the hostile camp) began with singing and praising, Jahve directed liers in wait against the sons of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, who were come against Judah, and they were smitten. מארבים denotes liers in wait, men hidden in ambush and lying in wait (Jdg 9:25). Who are here meant cannot be ascertained with certainty. Some of the older commentators, Ew. and Berth., think it refers to powers, angels sent by God, who are called insidiatores, because of the work they had to do in the army of the hostile peoples. But the passages where the interposition of heavenly powers is spoken of are different (cf. 2Ki 6:17; 2Ki 19:35), and it is not probable that heavenly powers would be called מארבים. Most probably earthly liers in wait are meant, who unexpectedly rushed forth from their ambush upon the hostile army, and raised a panic terror among them; so that, as is narrated in 2Ch 20:23., the Ammonites and Moabites first turned their weapons against the inhabitants of Mount Seir, and after they had exterminated them, began to exterminate each other. But the ambush cannot have been composed of men of Judah, because they were, according to 2Ch 20:15 and 2Ch 20:17, not to fight, but only to behold the deliverance wrought by the Lord. Probably it was liers in wait of the Seirites, greedy of spoil, who from an ambush made an attack upon the Ammonites and Moabites, and by the divine leading put the attacked in such fear and confusion, that they turned furiously upon the inhabitants of Mount Seir, who marched with them, and then fell to fighting with each other; just as, in Jdg 7:22., the Midianites were, under divine influence, so terrified by the unexpected attack of the small band led by Gideon, that they turned their swords against and mutually destroyed each other. שׂ בּיושׁבי וּככלּותם, and when they had come to an end (were finished) among the inhabitants of Seir, when they had massacred these, they helped the one against the other to destruction (משׁחית is a substantive, as 2Ch 22:4; Eze 5:16, etc.).

Verse 24

Now, when Judah came to the height in the wilderness (מצפּה, specula, watch-tower, here a height in the wilderness of Tekoa, whence one might look out over the wilderness Jeruel, 2Ch 20:16), and turned, or was about to turn, against the multitude of the enemy (ההמון referring back to 2Ch 20:12), behold, they saw “corpses lying upon the earth, and none had escaped,” i.e., they saw corpses in such multitude lying there, that to all appearance none had escaped.

Verse 25

So Jehoshaphat, with his people, came (as Jahaziel had announced, not to fight, but only to make booty) and found among them (בּהם, among or by the fallen) in abundance both wealth and corpses and precious vessels. The mention of פּגרים as part of the booty, between רכוּשׁ and the precious vessels, is somewhat surprising. Some Codd. (4 Kennic. and 3 de Rossi) and various ancient editions (Complut., the Brixenian used by Luther, the Bomberg. of date 1518 and 21, and the Münster) have, instead of it, בּנדים; but it is very questionable if the lxx and Vulg. have it (cf. de Rossi Variae Lectt. ad h. l.). בּגדים, garments, along with רכוּשׁ, moveable property (cattle, tents, etc.), seems to suit better, and is therefore held by Dathe and Berth. to be the correct and original reading. Yet the proofs of this are not decisive, for פגרים is much better attested, and we need not necessarily take רכוּשׁ to mean living and dead cattle; but just as רכוּשׁ denotes property of any kind, which, among nomadic tribes, consists principally in cattle, we may also take פּגרים in the signification of slain men and beasts - the clothes of the men and the accoutrements and ornaments of the beasts (cf. Jdg 8:26) being a by no means worthless booty. Garments as such are not elsewhere met with in enumerations of things taken as booty, in Jdg 8:26 only the purple robes of the Midianite princes being spoken of; and to the remark that the before-mentioned פּגרים has given rise to the changing of בּגדים into פּגרים, we may oppose the equally well-supported conjecture, that the apparently unsuitable meaning of the word פגרים may have given rise to the alteration of it into בּגדים. חמדות כּלי are probably in the main gold and silver ornaments, such as are enumerated in Jdg 8:25. And they spoiled for themselves משּׂא לאין, “there was not carrying,” i.e., in such abundance that it could not be carried away, removed, and plundered in three days, because the booty was so great. The unusually large quantity of booty is accounted for by the fact that these peoples had gone forth with all their property to drive the Israelites out of their inheritance, and to take possession of their land for themselves; so that this invasion of Judah was a kind of migration of the peoples, such as those which, at a later time, have been repeated on a gigantic scale, and have poured forth from Central Asia over the whole of Europe. In this, the purpose of the hostile hordes, we must seek the reason for their destruction by a miracle wrought of God. Because they intended to drive the people of Israel out of the land given them by God, and to destroy them, the Lord was compelled to come to the help of His people, and to destroy their enemies.

Verses 26-28

On the fourth day the men of Judah gathered themselves together, to give thanks to God the Lord for this blessing, in a valley which thence received the name בּרכה עמק (valley of blessing), and which cannot have been far from the battle-field. Thence they joyfully returned, with Jehoshaphat at their head, to Jerusalem, and went up, the Levites and priests performing solemn music, to the house of God, to render further thanks to the Lord for His wondrous help (2Ch 20:27.). The ancient name בּרכה still exists in the Wady Bereikut, to the west of Tekoa, near the road which leads from Hebron to Jerusalem. “A wide, open valley, and upon its west side, on a small rising ground, are the ruins of Bereikut, which cover from three to four acres” (Robinson's New Biblical Researches, and Phys. Geogr. S. 106; cf. v. de Velde, Memoir, p. 292). Jerome makes mention of the place in Vita Paulae, where he narrates that Paula, standing in supercilio Caphar baruca, looked out thence upon the wide desert, and the former land of Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Reland, Pal. illustr. pp. 356 and 685). There is no ground, on the other hand, for the identification of the valley of blessing with the upper part of the valley of Kidron, which, according to Joe 3:2, Joe 3:12, received the name of Valley of Jehoshaphat (see on Joe 3:2). - On 2Ch 20:27, cf. Ezr 6:22; Neh 12:43.

Verses 29-30

The fame of this victory of the Lord over the enemies of Israel caused the terror of God to be spread abroad over all the kingdoms of the surrounding lands, in consequence of which the kingdom of Judah had rest (cf. 2Ch 17:10). On the last clause of 2Ch 20:30, cf. 2Ch 15:15. This wonderful acts of the Lord is made the subject of praise to God in the Korahite Psalms, Psa 46:1, Psa 47:1, and Psa 48:1, and perhaps also in Ps 83, composed by an Asaphite, perhaps Jahaziel (see Del. Introduction to these Psalms).

Verses 31-37

Concluding notes on Jehoshaphat's reign, which are found also in 1Ki 22:41-51, where they, supplemented by some notes (1Ki 22:45, 1Ki 22:48, and 1Ki 22:49) which are wanting in the Chronicle, form the whole account of his reign. In the statements as to Jehoshaphat's age at his accession, and the length and character of his reign, both accounts agree, except that the author of the Chronicle has, instead of the stereotyped formula, “and the people still sacrificed and offered incense upon the high places,” a remark more significant of the state of affairs: “and the people had not yet determinedly turned their heart to the God of their fathers” (2Ch 20:33). The notice that Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel (1Ki 22:45) is not found in the Chronicle, because that would, as a matter of course, follow from Jehoshaphat's having joined affinity with the royal house of Ahab, and had been already sufficiently attested by the narrative in 2 Chron 18, and is so still further by the undertaking spoken of in 2Ch 20:35. For the same reason, the clause introduced in 1Ki 22:46 about the valiant acts and the wars of Jehoshaphat is omitted in the Chronicle, as these acts have been specially narrated here. As to Jehu's speeches, which were put into the book of Kings, see the Introduction. Further, the remark on the driving out of the remaining Sodomites (קדשׁ) from the land, 1Ki 22:47, which refers back to 1Ki 15:12, is wanting here, because this speciality is not mentioned in the case of Asa. Finally, the remark that Edom had no king, but only a viceroy or deputy, serves in 1Ki 22:48 only as an introduction to the succeeding account of Jehoshaphat's attempt to open up anew the sea traffic with Ophir. But on that subject the author of the Chronicle only recounts in 2Ch 20:35-37 that Jehoshaphat allied himself with the godless Ahaziah the king of Israel to build in Ezion-gaber ships to go to Tarshish, was censured for it by the prophet Eliezer, who announced to him that Jahve would destroy his work, and that thereupon the ships were broken, doubtless by a storm, and so could not go upon the voyage. אהרי־כן does not definitely fix the time (cf. 2Ch 20:1), but only states that the alliance with Ahaziah took place after the victory over the Ammonites and Moabites. Ahaziah ascended the throne in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat, and reigned scarcely two years, and the enterprise under discussion falls in that period. אתחבּר is an Aramaic form for התחבּר.
The last clause of v. 38, “he did wickedly,” Bertheau refers to Jehoshaphat: he did wrong; because the context shows that these words are intended to contain a censure on Jehoshaphat for his connection with the king of the northern kingdom. But this remark, though substantially correct, by no means proves that הוּא refers to Jehoshaphat. The words contain a censure on Jehoshaphat on account of his alliance with Ahaziah, even if they describe Ahaziah's conduct. We must, with the older commentators, take the words to refer to Ahaziah, for הרשׁיע is much too strong a word for Jehoshaphat's fault in the matter. The author of the Chronicle does indeed use the word הרשׁיע of Jehoshaphat's grandson Ahaziah, 2Ch 22:3, in the clause, “his mother, a daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, was for הרשׁיע his counsellor,” but only that he may characterize the acts of the Ahabic house. Jehoshaphat allied himself with the wicked Ahaziah to build ships תּרשׁישׁ ללכת, to go to Tarshish; and they built ships at Ezion-gaber, i.e., on the Red Sea. Instead of this, we have in 1Ki 22:49 : Jehoshaphat built Tarshish ships to go to Ophir for gold. Hence it is manifest that in both passages the same undertaking is spoken of, and the expression “Tarshish ships” is paraphrased in the Chronicle by “ships to go to Tarshish.” This periphrasis is, however, a mistake; for Tarshish ships are merely ships which, like those going to Tarshish, were built for long sea voyages, for Jehoshaphat merely desired to renew the voyages to Ophir. With the exception of this erroneous interpretation of the words, Tarshish ships, the two narratives agree, if we only keep in mind the fact that both are incomplete extracts from a more detailed account of this enterprise. The Chronicle supplies us with an explanatory commentary on the short account in 1Ki 22:49, both in the statement that Jehoshaphat allied himself with Ahaziah of Israel for the preparation of the ships, and also in communicating the word of the prophet Eliezer as to the enterprise, which makes clear to us the reason for the destruction of the ships; while in 1Ki 22:49 merely the fact of their destruction is recorded. Of the prophet Eliezer nothing further is known than the saying here communicated. His father's name, Dodavahu, is analogous in form to Hodavya, Joshavya (see on 1Ch 3:24), so that there is no good ground to alter it into דּודיּהוּ, friend of Jahve, after the Doodi'a of the lxx. As to Mareshah, see on 2Ch 11:8. The perfect פּרץ is prophetic: Jahve will rend thy work asunder. The words which follow record the fulfilment. עצר as in 2Ch 13:20; 2Ch 14:10. With this the chronicler's account of this enterprise concludes; while in 1Ki 22:50 it is further stated that, after the destruction of the ships first built, Ahaziah called upon Jehoshaphat still to undertake the Ophir voyage in common with him, and to build new ships for the purpose, but Jehoshaphat would not. The ground of his refusal may easily be gathered from 2Ch 20:37 of the Chronicle.

Chap. 21

Verses 1-3

Jehoshaphat's Death, and the Reign of His Son Joram - 2 Chronicles 21

The account of the death and burial of Jehoshaphat is carried over to 2 Chron 21, because Joram's first act after Jehoshaphat's death, 2Ch 21:2., stands in essential connection with that event, since Joram began his reign with the murder of all his brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat (2Ch 21:2-4). The further account of Joram (2Ch 21:5-10) agrees almost verbally with the account in 2Ki 8:17-22; then in 2Ch 21:12-19 there follows further information as to the divine chastisements inflicted upon Joram for his crime, which is not found in 2 Kings; and in 2Ch 21:20 we have remarks on his end, which correspond to the statements in 2Ki 8:24.
2Ch 21:1-3Jehoshaphat's death, and the slaughter of his sons by Joram. - 2Ch 21:2, 2Ch 21:3. Joram had six brothers, whom their father had plentifully supplied with means of subsistence - presents in silver, gold, and precious things - “in the fenced cities of Judah;” i.e., he had made them, as Rehoboam also had made his sons, commandants of fortresses, with ample revenues; but the kingdom he gave to Joram as the first-born. Among the six names two Azariah's occur, - the one written Azarjah, the other Azarjahu. Jehoshaphat is called king of Israel instead of king of Judah, because he as king walked in the footsteps of Israel, Jacob the wrestler with God, and was a true king of God's people.

Verse 4

Now when Joram ascended (raised himself to) the throne of his father, and attained to power (יתחזּק as in 2Ch 1:1), he slew all his brethren with the sword, and also some of the princes of Israel, i.e., the tribal princes of his kingdom. It could hardly be from avarice that he slew his brothers, merely to get possession of their property; probably it was because they did not sympathize with the political course which he was entering upon, and disapproved of the idolatrous conduct of Joram and his wife Athaliah. This may be gathered from the fact that in 2Ch 21:13 they are called better than Joram. The princes probably drew down upon themselves the wrath of Joram, or of his heathen consort, by disapproving of the slaughter of the royal princes, or by giving other signs of discontent with the spirit of their reign.

Verses 5-9

2Ch 21:5-9Duration and spirit of Joram's reign. - These verses agree with 2Ki 8:17-22, with the exception of some immaterial divergences, and have been commented upon in the remarks on that passage. - In 2Ch 21:7 the thought is somewhat otherwise expressed than in 2Ki 8:19 : “Jahve would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that He had made with David;” instead of, “He would not destroy Judah because of David His servant, as He had said.” Instead of לבניו ניר לו לתת we have in the Chronicle וּלבניו ניר לו לתת, to give him a lamp, and that in respect of his sons, w being inserted before לבניו to bring the idea more prominently forward. In regard to שׂריו עם, 2Ch 21:9, instead of צעירה, 2Ki 8:21, see on 2 Kings loc. cit. At the end of 2Ch 21:9 the words, “and the people fled to their tents” (2Ki 8:21), whereby the notice of Joram's attempt to bring Edom again under his sway, which is in itself obscure enough, becomes yet more obscure.

Verses 10-11

The chronicler concludes the account of the revolt of Edom and of the city of Libnah against Judah's dominion with the reflection: “For he (Joram) had forsaken Jahve the God of the fathers,” and consequently had brought this revolt upon himself, the Lord punishing him thereby for his sin. “Yea, even high places did he make.” The גּם placed at the beginning may be connected with בּמות (cf. Isa 30:33), while the subject is emphasized by הוּא: The same who had forsaken the God of the fathers, made also high places, which Asa and Jehoshaphat had removed, 2Ch 14:2, 2Ch 14:4; 2Ch 17:6. “And he caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication,” i.e., seduced them into the idolatrous worship of Baal. That the Hiph. ויּזן is to be understood of the spiritual whoredom of Baal-worship we learn from 2Ch 21:13 : “as the house of Ahab caused to commit fornication.” וידּח, “and misled Judah,” i.e., drew them away by violence from the right way. ידּח is to be interpreted in accordance with Deu 13:6, Deu 13:11.

Verses 12-17

The prophet Elijah's letter against Joram, and the infliction of the punishments as announced. - 2Ch 21:12. There came to him a writing from the prophet Elijah to this effect: “Thus saith Jahve, the God of thy father David, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat, ... but hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel, ... and also hast slain thy brethren, the house of thy father, who were better than thyself; behold, Jahve will send a great plague upon thy people, and upon thy sons, and thy wives, and upon all thy goods; and thou shalt have great sickness, by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.” מכתב, writing, is a written prophetic threatening, in which his sins are pointed out to Joram, and the divine punishment for them announced. In regard to this statement, we need not be surprised that nothing is elsewhere told us of any written prophecies of Elijah; for we have no circumstantial accounts of his prophetic activity, by which we might estimate the circumstances which may have induced him in this particular instance to commit his prophecy to writing. But, on the other hand, it is very questionable if Elijah was still alive in the reign of Joram of Judah. His translation to heaven is narrated in 2 Kings 2, between the reign of Ahaziah and Joram of Israel, but the year of the event is nowhere stated in Scripture. In the Jewish Chronicle Seder olam, 2 Chr 17:45, it is indeed placed in the second year of Ahaziah of Israel; but this statement is not founded upon historical tradition, but is a mere deduction from the fact that his translation is narrated in 2 Kings 2 immediately after Ahaziah's death; and the last act of Elijah of which we have any record (2 Kings 1) falls in the second year of that king. Lightfoot, indeed (Opp. i. p. 85), Ramb., and Dereser have concluded from 2Ki 3:11 that Elijah was taken away from the earth in the reign of Jehoshaphat, because according to that passage, in the campaign against the Moabites, undertaken in company with Joram of Israel, Jehoshaphat inquired for a prophet, and received the answer that Elisha was there, who had poured water upon the hands of Elijah. But the only conclusion to be drawn from that is, that in the camp, or near it, was Elisha, Elijah's servant, not that Elijah was no longer upon earth. The perfect יצק אשׁר seems indeed to imply this; but it is questionable if we may so press the perfect, i.e., whether the speaker made use of it, or whether it was employed only by the later historian. The words are merely a periphrasis to express the relationship of master and servant in which Elijah stood to Elisha, and tell us only that the latter was Elijah's attendant. But Elisha had entered upon this relationship to Elijah long before Elijah's departure from the earth (1Ki 19:19.). Elijah may therefore have still been alive under Joram of Judah; and Berth. accordingly thinks it “antecedently probable that he spoke of Joram's sins, and threatened him with punishment. But the letter,” so he further says, “is couched in quite general terms, and gives, moreover, merely a prophetic explanation of the misfortunes with which Joram was visited;” whence we may conclude that in its present form it is the work of a historian living at a later time, who describes the relation of Elijah to Joram in few words, and according to his conception of it as a whole. This judgment rests on dogmatic grounds, and flows from a principle which refuses to recognise any supernatural prediction in the prophetic utterances. The contents of the letter can be regarded as a prophetic exposition of the misfortunes which broke in, as it were, upon Joram, only by those who deny à priori that there is any special prediction in the speeches of the prophets, and hold all prophecies which contain such to be vaticinia post eventum. Somewhat more weighty is the objection raised against the view that Elijah was still upon earth, to the effect that the divine threatenings would make a much deeper impression upon Joram by the very fact that the letter came from a prophet who was no longer in life, and would thus more easily bring him to the knowledge that the Lord is the living God, who had in His hand his breath and all his ways, and who knew all his acts. Thus the writing would smite the conscience of Joram like a voice from the other world (Dächsel). But this whole remark is founded only upon subjective conjectures and presumptions, for which actual analogies are wanting.
For the same reason we cannot regard the remark of Menken as very much to the point, when he says: “If a man like Elias were to speak again upon earth, after he had been taken from it, he must do it from the clouds: this would harmonize with the whole splendour of his course in life; and, in my opinion, that is what actually occurred.” For although we do not venture “to mark the limits to which the power and sphere of activity of the perfected saints is extended,” yet we are not only justified, but also bound in duty, to judge of those facts of revelation which are susceptible of different interpretations, according to the analogy of the whole Scripture. But the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments know nothing of any communications by writings between the perfected saints in heaven and men; indeed, they rather teach the contrary in the parable of the rich man^[11] (Luk 16:31)
There are consequently no sufficient grounds for believing that the glorified Elijah either sent a letter to Joram from heaven by an angel, or commissioned any living person to write the letter. The statement of the narrative, “there came to him a writing from Elijah the prophet,” cannot well be understood to mean anything else than that Elijah wrote the threatening prophecy which follows; but we have no certain proof that Elijah was then no longer alive, but had been already received into heaven. The time of his translation cannot be exactly fixed. He was still alive in the second year of Ahaziah of Israel; for he announced to this king upon his sick-bed that he would die of his fall (2 Kings 1). Most probably he was still alive also at the commencement of the reign of Joram of Israel, who ascended the throne twenty-three years after Ahab. Jehoshaphat died six or seven years later; and after his death, his successor Joram slew his brothers, the other sons of Jehoshaphat. Elijah may have lived to see the perpetration of this crime, and may consequently also have sent the threatening prophecy which is under discussion to Joram. As he first appeared under Ahab, on the above supposition, he would have filled the office of prophet for about thirty years; while his servant Elisha, whom he chose to be his successor as early as in the reign of Ahab (1Ki 19:16), died only under Joash of Israel (2Ki 13:14.), who became king fifty-seven years after Ahab's death, and must consequently have discharged the prophetic functions for at least sixty years. But even if we suppose that Elijah had been taken away from the earth before Jehoshaphat's death, we may, with Buddaeus, Ramb., and other commentators, accept this explanation: that the Lord had revealed to him Joram's wickedness before his translation, and had commissioned him to announce to Joram in writing the divine punishment which would follow, and to send this writing to him at the proper time. This would entirely harmonize with the mode of action of this great man of God. To him God had revealed the elevation of Jehu to the throne of Israel, and the extirpation of the house of Ahab by him, together with the accession of Hazael, and the great oppressions which he would inflict upon Israel, - all events which took place only after the death of Joram of Judah. Him, too, God had commissioned even under Ahab to anoint Jehu to be king over Israel (1Ki 19:16), which Elisha caused to be accomplished by a prophetic scholar fourteen years later (2Ki 9:1.); and to him the Lord may also have revealed the iniquity of Joram, Jehoshaphat's successor, even as early as the second year of Ahaziah of Israel, when he announced to this king his death seven years before Jehoshaphat's death, and may have then commissioned him to announce the divine punishment of his sin. But if Elijah committed the anointing of both Hazael and Jehu to his servant Elisha, why may he not also have committed to him the delivery of this threatening prophecy which he had drawn up in writing? Without bringing forward in support of this such hypotheses as that the contents of the letter would have all the greater effect, since it would seem as if the man of God were speaking to him from beyond the grave (O. v. Gerlach), we have yet a perfect right to suppose that a written word from the terrible man whom the Lord had accredited as His prophet by fire from heaven, in his struggle against Baal-worship under Ahab and Ahaziah, would be much better fitted to make an impression upon Joram and his consort Athaliah, who was walking in the footsteps of her mother Jezebel, than a word of Elisha, or any other prophet who was not endowed with the spirit and power of Elijah.
Elijah's writing pointed out to Joram two great transgressions: (1) his forsaking the Lord for the idolatrous worship of the house of Ahab, and also his seducing the people into this sin; and (2) the murder of his brothers. For the punishment of the first transgression he announced to him a great smiting which God would inflict upon his people, his family, and his property; for the second crime he foretold heavy bodily chastisements, by a dreadful disease which would terminate fatally. ימים על ימים, 2Ch 21:15, is accus. of duration: days on days, i.e., continuing for days added to days; cf. שׁנה על שׁנה ספוּ, Isa 29:1. ימים Berth. takes to mean a period of a year, so that by this statement of time a period of two years is fixed for the duration of the disease before death. But the words in themselves cannot have this signification; it can only be a deduction from 2Ch 21:18. These two threats of punishment were fulfilled. The fulfilment of the first is recorded in 2Ch 21:16. God stirred up the spirit of the Philistines and the Arabians (רוּח את העיר, as in 1Ch 5:26), so that they came up against Judah, and broke it, i.e., violently pressed into the land as conquerors (בּקע, so split, then to conquer cities by breaking through their walls; cf. 2Ki 25:4, etc.), and carried away all the goods that were found in the king's house, with the wives and sons of Joram, except Jehoahaz the youngest (2Ch 22:1). Movers (Chron. S. 122), Credner, Hitz., and others on Joe 3:5, Berth., etc., conclude from this that these enemies captured Jerusalem and plundered it. But this can hardly be the case; for although Jerusalem belonged to Judah, and might be included in בּיהוּדה, yet as a rule Jerusalem is specially named along with Judah as being the chief city; and neither the conquest of Judah, nor the carrying away of the goods from the king's house, and of the king's elder sons, with certainty involves the capture of the capital. The opinion that by the “substance which was found in the king's house” we are to understand the treasures of the royal palace, is certainly incorrect. רכוּשׁ denotes property of any sort; and what the property of the king or of the king's house might include, we may gather from the catalogue of the אוצרות of David, in the country, in the cities, villages, and castles, 1Ch 27:25., where they consist in vineyards, forests, and herds of cattle, and together with the המּלך אוצרות formed the property (הרכוּשׁ) of King David. All this property the conquering Philistines and Arabians who had pressed into Judah might carry away without having captured Jerusalem. But המּלך בּית denotes here, not the royal palace, but the king's family; for המּלך לבית הנּמצא does not denote what was found in the palace, but what of the possessions of the king's house they found. נמצא with ל is not synonymous with בּ נמצא, but denotes to be attained, possessed by; cf. Jos 17:16 and Deu 21:17. Had Jerusalem been plundered, the treasures of the palace and of the temple would also have been mentioned: 2Ch 25:24; 2Ch 12:9; 2Ki 14:13. and 1Ki 14:26; cf. Kuhlmey, alttestl. Studien in der Luther. Ztschr. 1844, iii. S. 82ff. Nor does the carrying away of the wives and children of King Joram presuppose the capture of Jerusalem, as we learn from the more exact account of the matter in 2Ch 22:1.

Verse 18

The second punishment fell upon the body and life of the king. The Lord smote him in his bowels to (with) disease, for which there was no healing. מרפּא לאין is in apposition to לחלי, literally, “to not being healing.”

Verse 19

And it came to pass in days after days (i.e., when a number of days had passed), and that at the time (וּכעת( emit eh) of the expiration of the end in two days, then his bowels went out during his sickness, and he died in sore pains (תּחלאים, phenomena of disease, i.e., pains). The words שׁנים לימים הקּץ צאת וּכעת are generally translated as if שׁנים לימים were a mere periphrasis of the stat. constr. Vatabl. and Cler., for example, translate: et secundum tempus egrediendi finis annorum duorum, i.e., postquam advenit finis a. d., or cum exacti essent duo anni; similarly Berth.: “at the time of the approach of the end of two times.” But against this we have not only the circumstance that no satisfactory reason for the use of this periphrasis for the genitive can be perceived, and that no analogies can be found for the expression שׁנים לימים הקּץ, the end of two years, instead of שׁנים היּמים קץ; but also the more decisive linguistic reason that הקּץ צאת cannot denote the approach of the end, but only the expiry, the running out of the end; and finally, that the supposition that ימים here and in 2Ch 21:15 denotes a year is without foundation. Schmidt and Rabm. have already given a better explanation: quumque esset tempus, quo exiit finis s. quum exiret ac compleretur terminus ille, in epistola Eliae 2Ch 21:15 praefixus; but in this case also we should expect היּמים קץ, since שׁנים לימים should point back to ימים על ימים, and contain a more exact definition of the terms employed in 2Ch 21:15, which are not definite enough. We therefore take הקּץ צאת by itself, and translate: At the time of the end, i.e., when the end, sc. of life or of the disease, had come about two days, i.e., about two days before the issue of the end of the disease, then the bowels went out of the body-they flowed out from the body as devoured by the disease. חליו עם, in, during the sickness, consequently before the decease (cf. for עם in this signification, Psa 72:5, Dan. 3:33). Trusen (Sitten, Gebr. und Krankh. der alten Hebräer, S. 212f.) holds this disease to have been a violent dysentery (diarrhoea), “being an inflammation of the nervous tissue (Nervenhaut) of the whole great intestine, which causes the overlying mucous membrane to decay and peel off, which then falls out often in tube-shape, so that the intestines appear to fall from the body.” His people did not make a burning for him like the burning of his fathers, cf. 2Ch 16:14; that is, denied him the honours usual at burial, because of their discontent with his evil reign.

Verse 20

The repetition of his age and the length of his reign (cf. 2Ch 21:6) is accounted for by the fact that the last section of this chapter is derived from a special source, wherein these notes likewise were contained. The peculiarity of the language and the want of the current expressions of our historian also favour the idea that some special authority has been used here. “And he departed, mourned by none.” Luther erroneously translates, “and walked in a way which was not right” (und wandelt das nicht fein war), after the “ambulavit non recte” of the Vulg.; for חמדּה denotes, not a good walk, but desiderium, חמדּה בּלא, sine desiderio, i.e., a nemine desideratus. הלך, to depart, i.e., die, as Gen 15:2. Moreover, though he was buried in the city of David, yet he was not laid in the graves of the kings, by which act also a judgment was pronounced upon his reign; cf. 2Ch 24:25 and 2Ch 26:23. Ahaziah's reign of a year, and his death. - The account of Ahaziah in 2Ki 8:26-29 agrees with our narrative, except that there the reflections of the chronicler on the spirit of his government are wanting; but, on the contrary, the account of his death is very brief in the Chronicle (2Ch 22:6-9), while in 2 Kings 9 and 10 the extirpation of the Ahabic house by Jehu, in the course of which Ahaziah was slain with his relatives, is narrated at length.

Chap. 22

Verse 1

Instead of the short stereotyped notice, “and Ahaziah his son was king in his stead,” with which 2Ki 8:24 concludes the history of Joram, the Chronicle gives more exact information as to Ahaziah's accession: “The inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, his youngest son (who is called in 2Ch 21:17 Jehoahaz), king in his stead; for all the elder (sons), the band which had come among the Arabs to the camp had slain.” In ימליכוּ we have a hint that Ahaziah's succession was disputed or doubtful; for where the son follows the father on the throne without opposition, it is simply said in the Chronicle also, “and his son was king in his stead.” But the only person who could contest the throne with Ahaziah, since all the other sons of Joram who would have had claims upon it were not then alive, was his mother Athaliah, who usurped the throne after his death. All the elder sons (הראשׁנים, the earlier born) were slain by the troop which had come among (with) the Arabians (see 2Ch 21:16.) into the camp, - not of the Philistines (Cler.), but of the men of Judah; that is, they were slain by a reconnoitring party, which, in the invasion of Judah by the Philistines and Arabs, surprised the camp of the men of Judah, and slew the elder sons of Joram, who had marched to the war. Probably they did not cut them down on the spot, but (according to 2Ch 21:17) took them prisoners and slew them afterwards.

Verse 2

The number 42 is an orthographical error for 22 (ב having been changed into )מ,   2Ki 8:26. As Joram was thirty-two years of age at his accession, and reigned eight years (2Ch 21:20 and 2Ch 21:5), at his death his youngest son could not be older than twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, and even then Joram must have begotten him in his eighteenth or nineteenth year. It is quite consistent with this that Joram had yet older sons; for in the East marriages are entered upon at a very early age, and the royal princes were wont to have several wives, or, besides their proper wives, concubines also. Certainly, had Ahaziah had forty-two older brothers, as Berth. and other critics conclude from 2Ki 10:13., then he could not possibly have been begotten, or been born, in his father's eighteenth year. But that idea rests merely upon an erroneous interpretation of the passage quoted; see on 2Ch 22:8. Ahaziah's mother Athaliah is called the daughter, i.e., granddaughter, of Omri, as in 2Ki 8:26, because he was the founder of the idolatrous dynasty of the kingdom of the ten tribes.

Verse 3

He also (like his father Joram, 2Ch 21:6) walked in the ways of the house of Ahab. This statement is accounted for by the clause: for his mother (a daughter of Ahab and the godless Jezebel) was his counsellor to do evil, i.e., led him to give himself up to the idolatry of the house of Ahab.

Verses 4-6

The further remark also, “he did that which was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, like the house of Ahab,” is similarly explained; for they (the members of the house of Ahab related to him through his mother) were counsellors to him after the death of his father to his destruction, cf. 2Ch 20:23; while in 2Ki 8:27, the relationship alone is spoken of as the reason of his evil-doing. How far this counsel led to his destruction is narrated in 2Ch 22:5 and onwards, and the narrative is introduced by the words, “He walked also in their counsel;” whence it is clear beyond all doubt, that Ahaziah entered along with Joram, Ahab's son, upon the war which was to bring about the destruction of Ahab's house, and to cost him his life, on the advice of Ahab's relations. There is no doubt that Joram, Ahab's son, had called upon Ahaziah to take part in the war against the Syrians at Ramoth Gilead (see on 2Ch 18:28), and that Athaliah with her party supported his proposal, so that Ahaziah complied. In the war the Aramaeans (Syrians) smote Joram; i.e., according to 2Ch 22:6, they wounded him (הרמּים is a contraction for הארמּים,   2Ki 8:28). In consequence of this Joram returned to Jezreel, the summer residence of the Ahabic royal house (1Ki 18:45), the present Zerin; see on Jos 19:18. המּכּים כּי has no meaning, and is merely an error for המּכּים מן,   2Ki 8:29, which indeed is the reading of several Codd.: to let himself be cured of his strokes (wounds). ועזריהוּ, too, is an orthographical error for ועחזיהוּ: and Ahaziah went down to visit the wounded Joram, his brother-in-law. Whether he went from Jerusalem or from the loftily-situated Ramah cannot be with certainty determined, for we have no special account of the course of the war, and from 2Ki 9:14. we only learn that the Israelite army remained in Ramoth after the return of the wounded Joram. It is therefore probable that Ahaziah went direct from Ramoth to visit Joram, but it is not ascertained; for there is nothing opposed to the supposition that, after Joram had been wounded in the battle, and while the Israelite host remained to hold the city against the Syrian king Hazael, Ahaziah had returned to his capital, and thence went after some time to visit the wounded Joram in Jezreel.

Verses 7-9

Without touching upon the conspiracy against Joram, narrated in 2 Kings 9, at the head of which was Jehu, the captain of the host, whom God caused to be anointed king over Israel by a scholar of the prophets deputed by Elisha, and whom he called upon to extirpate the idolatrous family of Ahab, since it did not belong to the plan of the Chronicle to narrate the history of Israel, our historian only briefly records the slaughter of Ahaziah and his brother's sons by Jehu as being the result of a divine dispensation.

Verse 7

2Ch 22:7 “And of God was (came) the destruction (תּבוּסה, a being trodden down, a formation which occurs here only) of Ahaziah, that he went to Joram;” i.e., under divine leading had Ahaziah come to Joram, there to find his death. וגו וּבבאו, and when he was come, he went out with Joram against Jehu (instead of אל־יהוּא, we have in 2Ki 9:21 the more distinct יהוּא לקראת, towards Jehu) the son of Nimshi, whom God had anointed to extirpate the house of Ahab (2Ki 9:1-10).

Verse 8

When Jehu was executing judgment upon the house of Ahab (נשׁפּט usually construed with את, to be at law with any one, to administer justice; cf. Isa 46:13, Eze 38:22), he found the princes of Judah, and the sons of the brothers of Ahaziah, serving Ahaziah, and slew them. משׁרתים, i.e., in the train of King Ahaziah as his servants. As to when and where Jehu met the brothers' sons of Ahaziah and slew them, we have no further statement, as the author of the Chronicle mentions that fact only as a proof of the divinely directed extirpation of all the members of the idolatrous royal house. In 2Ki 10:12-14 we read that Jehu, after he had extirpated the whole Israelite royal house - Joram and Jezebel, and the seventy sons of Ahab - went to Samaria, there to eradicate the Baal-worship, and upon his way thither met the brothers of Ahaziah the king of Judah, and caused them to be taken alive, and then slain, to the number of forty-two. These עחזיהוּ אחי, forty-two men, cannot have been actual brothers of Ahaziah, since all Ahaziah's brethren had, according to 2Ch 22:1 and 2Ch 21:17, been slain in the reign of Joram, in the invasion of the Philistines and Arabians. They must be brothers only in the wider sense, i.e., cousins and nephews of Ahaziah, as Movers (S. 258) and Ewald recognise, along with the older commentators. The Chronicle, therefore, is quite correct in saying, “sons of the brethren of Ahaziah,” and along with these princes of Judah, who, according to the context, can only be princes who held offices at court, especially such as were entrusted with the education and guardianship of the royal princes. Perhaps these are included in the number forty-two (Kings). But even if this be not the case, we need not suppose that there were forty-two brothers' sons, or nephews of Ahaziah, since אחים includes cousins also, and in the text of the Chronicle no number is stated, although forty-two nephews would not be an unheard-of number; and we do not know how many elder brothers Ahaziah had. Certainly the nephews or brothers' sons of Ahaziah cannot have been very old, since Ahaziah's father Joram died at the age of forty, and Ahaziah, who became king in his twenty-second year, reigned only one year. But from the early development of posterity in southern lands, and the polygamy practised by the royal princes, Joram might easily have had in his fortieth year a considerable number of grandsons from five to eight years old, and boys of from six to nine years might quite well make a journey with their tutors to Jezreel to visit their relations. In this way the divergent statements as to the slaughter of the brothers and brothers' sons of Ahaziah, contained in 2 Kings 9 and in our 2Ch 22:8, may be reconciled, without our being compelled, as Berth. thinks we are, to suppose that there were two different traditions on this subject.

Verse 9

And he (Jehu) sought Ahaziah, and they (Jehu's body-guard or his warriors) caught him while he was hiding in Samaria, and brought him to Jehu, and slew him. Then they (his servants, 2Ki 9:27) buried him, for they said: He is a son of Jehoshaphat, who sought Jahve with all his heart. We find more exact information as to Ahaziah's death in 2Ki 9:27., according to which Ahaziah, overtaken by Jehu near Jibleam in his flight before him, and smitten, i.e., wounded, fled to Megiddo, and there died, and was brought by his servants to Jerusalem, and buried with his fathers in the city of David. For the reconciliation of these statements, see on 2Ki 9:27. The circumstance that in our account first the slaughter of the brothers' sons, then that of Ahaziah is mentioned, while according to 2 Kings 9 and 10 the slaughter of Ahaziah would seem to have preceded, does not make any essential difference; for the short account in the Chronicle is not arranged chronologically, but according to the subject, and the death of Ahaziah is mentioned last only in order that it might be connected with the further events which occurred in Judah. The last clause of 2Ch 22:9, “and there was not to the house of Ahab one who would have possessed power for the kingdom,” i.e., there was no successor on the throne to whom the government might straightway be transferred, forms a transition to the succeeding account of Athaliah's usurpation.

Verses 10-12

2Ch 22:10-12The six years' tyranny of Athaliah. - In regard to her, all that is stated is, that after Ahaziah's death she ascended the throne, and caused all the royal seed of the house of Judah, i.e., all the male members of the royal house, to be murdered. From this slaughter only Joash the son of Ahaziah, an infant a year old, was rescued, together with his nurse, by the princess Jehoshabeath, who was married to the high priest Jehoiada. He was hidden for six years, and during that time Athaliah reigned. The same narrative, for the most part in the same words, is found in 2Ki 11:1-3, and has been already commented upon there.

Chap. 23

Verses 1-3

The Fall of Athaliah, and the Coronation and Reign of Joash - 2 Chronicles 23-24

After Joash had been kept in hiding for six years, the high priest Jehoiada came to the resolution to make an end of the tyranny of Athaliah, and to raise the young prince to the throne. The carrying out of this resolution is narrated in 2 Chron 23, and thereafter in 2 Chron 24. All that is important as to the reign of Joash is communicated.
2Ch 23:1-3Joash raised to the throne, and Athaliah slain. - In 2 Kings 11:4-20 we have another account of these events, in which the matter is in several points more briefly narrated, and apparently differently represented. According to both narratives, the thing was undertaken and carried out by the high priest Jehoiada; but according to 2 Kings 11, the high priest would appear to have mainly availed himself of the co-operation of the royal body-guard in the execution of his plan, while according to the Chronicle it is the Levites and the heads of the fathers'-houses who are made use of. Thereupon De Wette, Movers, Thenius, and Bertheau consequently maintain that the author of the Chronicle, proceeding on the view that the high priest, the chief of so many priests and Levites, would not have recourse to the assistance of the royal body-guard, has altered the statements in the second book of Kings accordingly, and wishes to represent the matter in a different way. But this assertion can be made with an appearance of truth only on the presupposition, already repeatedly shown to be erroneous, that the author of the Chronicle has made the account in 2 Kings 11 the basis of his narrative, and designedly altered it, and can scarcely be upheld even by the incorrect interpretation of various words. That 2 Kings 11 is not the source from which our account has been derived, nor the basis on which it is founded, is manifest from the very first verses of the chronicler's narrative, where the names of the five princes over hundreds, with whose co-operation Jehoiada elaborated his plan and carried it into execution, are individually enumerated; while in 2 Kings 11, where the preparations for the accomplishment of the work are very briefly treated of, they will be sought for in vain. But if, on the contrary, the two accounts be recognised to be extracts confining themselves to the main points, excerpted from a more detailed narrative of the event from different points of view, the discrepancies may be at once reconciled. Instead of the short statement, 2Ki 11:4, that the high priest Jehoiada ordered the centurions of the royal body-guard to come to him in the temple (ויּבא...יקּח), made a covenant with them, caused them to swear, and showed them the king's son, we read in the Chronicle (2Ch 23:1-3), that the high priest Jehoiada took five centurions, whose names are stated with historical exactitude, into covenant with him, i.e., sent for them and made a covenant with them, and that these men then went throughout Judah, and summoned the Levites from all the cities of Judah, and the heads of the fathers'-houses of Israel, to Jerusalem; whereupon Jehoiada with the whole assembly made a covenant with the king in the house of God, and Jehoiada said to the people, “The king's son shall be king, as Jahve hath said of the sons of David.” That this more expanded narrative can without difficulty be reconciled with the summary statement in 2Ki 11:4, is perfectly manifest. By various devices, however, Berth. tries to bring out some discrepancies. In the first place, in the words, “Jehoiada sent and brought the princes of hundreds” (2Ki 11:4), he presses the שׁלח, which is not found in the Chronicle, translates it by “he sent out,” and interprets it with 2Ch 23:2 of the Chronicle; in the second, he takes כּל־הקּהל in 2Ch 23:3 of the Chronicle to mean “the whole congregation,” whereas it denotes only the assembly of the men named in 2Ch 23:1 and 2Ch 23:2; and, thirdly, he opposes the expression, “they made a covenant with the king” (2Ch 23:3, Chron.), to the statement (2Ki 11:2) that Jehoiada made a covenant to the princes, by making this latter statement mean that Jehoiada made a covenant with the princes, but not with the king, as if this covenant concerning the coronation of Joash as king might not be called, by a shorter mode of expression, a covenant with the king, especially when the declaration, “the son of the king shall reign,” follows immediately.

Verses 4-6

The case is similar with the contradictions in the account of the carrying out of the arrangements agreed upon. In Bertheau's view, this is the state of the case: According to 2Ki 11:5-8, the one part of the body-guard, which on Sabbath mounted guard in the royal palace, were to divide themselves into three bands: one third was to keep the guard of the royal house, which was certainly in the neighbourhood of the main entrance; the second third was to stand at the gate Sur, probably a side-gate of the palace; the third was to stand behind the door of the runners. The other part of the body-guard, on the other hand - all those who were relieved on the Sabbath - were to occupy the temple, so as to defend the young king. But according to the representation of the Chronicle, (1) the priests and the Levites were to divide themselves into three parts: the first third, those of the priests and Levites, who entered upon their duties on the Sabbath, were to be watchers of the thresholds (cf. on 1Ch 9:19.), i.e., were to mount guard in the temple as usual; the second third was to be in the house of the king (i.e., where the first third was to keep watch, according to 2 Kings); the third was to be at the gate Jesod. Then (2) the whole people were to stand in the courts of the temple, and, according to 2Ch 23:6, were to observe the ordinance of Jahve (2Ch 13:11), by which they were forbidden to enter the temple. From this Bertheau then concludes: “The guarding of the house of Jahve for the protection of the king (2Ki 11:7) has here become a יהוה משׁמרת.” But in opposition to this, we have to remark that in 2Ki 11:5-8 is it not said that the royal body-guard was to be posted as guards in the royal palace and in the temple; that is only a conclusion from the fact that Jehoiada conferred on the matter with the המּאות שׂרי of the executioners and runners, i.e., of the royal satellites, and instructed these centurions, that those entering upon the service on Sabbath were to keep watch in three divisions, and those retiring from the service in two divisions, in the following places, which are then more accurately designated. The one division of those entering upon the service were to stand, according to 2 Kings, by the gate Sur; according to the Chronicle, by the gate Jesod. The second, according to 2 Kings, was to keep the guard of the king's house; according to the Chronicle, it was to be in or by the king's house. The third was, according to 2 Kings, to be by (in) the gate behind the runners, and to keep the guard of the house Massach; according to the Chronicle, they were to serve as watchers of the thresholds. If, as is acknowledged by all, the gate סוּר is identical with the gate היסוד, - although it can neither be ascertained whether the difference in name has resulted merely from an orthographical error, or rests upon a double designation of one gate; nor yet can it be pointed out what the position of this gate, which is nowhere else mentioned, was, - then the Chronicle and 2 Kings agree as to the posts which were to occupy this door. The position also of the third part, המּלך בּבית (Chron.), will not be different from that of the third part, to which was committed the guarding of the king's house (Kings). The place where this third part took up its position is not exactly pointed out in either narrative, yet the statement, “to keep the watch of the house (temple) for warding off” (Kings), agrees with the appointment “to be guards of the thresholds” (Chron.), since the guarding of the thresholds has no other aim than to prevent unauthorized persons from entering. Now, since the young king, not merely according to the Chron., but also according to 2Ki 11:4, - where we are told that Jehoiada showed the son of the king to the chief men whom he had summoned to the house of Jahve, - was in the temple, and only after his coronation and Athaliah's death was led solemnly into the royal palace, we might take the king's house, the guard of which the one third of those entering upon the service were to keep (2Ki 11:7), to be the temple building in which the young king was, and interpret המּלך בּבית in accordance with that idea. In that case, there would be no reference to the settling of guards in the palace; and that view would seem to be favoured by the circumstance that the other third part of those entering upon their service on the Sabbath were to post themselves at the gate, behind the runners, and keep the guard of the house מסּח. That מסּח is not a nom. propr., but appellat., from נסח, to ward off, signifying warding off, is unanimously acknowledged by modern commentators; only Thenius would alter מסּח into וּנסח, “and shall ward off.” Gesenius, on the contrary, in his Thesaurus, takes the word to be a substantive, cum משׁמרת per appositionem conjunctum, in the signification, the guard for warding off, and translates, et vos agetis custodiam templi ad depellendum sc. populum (to ward off). If this interpretation be correct, then these words also do not treat of a palace guard; and to take הבּית to signify the temple is so evidently suggested by the context, according to which the high priest conducted the whole transaction in the temple, that we must have better grounds for referring the words to the royal palace than the mere presumption that, because the high priest discussed the plan with the captains of the royal body-guard, it must be the occupation of the royal palace which is spoken of.
But quite apart from the Chronicle, even the further account of the matter in 2 Kings 11 is unfavourable to the placing of guards in the royal palace. According to 2Ch 23:9, the captains did exactly as Jehoiada commanded. They took each of them their men - those coming on the Sabbath, and those departing - and went to the priest Jehoiada, who gave them David's weapons out of the house of God (2Ch 23:10), and the satellites stationed themselves in the court of the temple, and there the king was crowned. The unambiguous statement, 2Ch 23:9, that the captains, each with his men - i.e., those coming on Sabbath (entering upon the service), and those departing - came to the high priest in the temple, and there took up their position in the court, decisively excludes the idea that “those coming on the Sabbath” had occupied the guard-posts in the royal palace, and demands that the divisions mentioned in 2Ch 23:5 and 2Ch 23:6 should be posted at different parts and gates of the temple. That one third part had assigned to it a place behind the gate of the runners is not at all inconsistent with the above idea; for even if the gate behind the runners be identical with the gate of the runners (2Ki 11:19), it by no means follows from that that it was a gate of the palace, and not of the outer court of the temple. In accordance with this view, then, 2Ki 11:5, 2Ki 11:6 do not treat of an occupation of the royal palace, but of a provision for the security of the temple by the posting of guards. It is, moreover, against the supposition that the entrances to the palace were occupied by guards, that Athaliah, when she heard from her palace the noise of the people in the temple, came immediately into the temple, and was dragged forth and slain by the captains there in command. For what purpose can they have placed guards by the palace gates, if they did not desire to put any hindrance in the way of the queen's going forth into the temple? The hypotheses of Thenius, that it was done to keep away those who were devoted to Athaliah, to make themselves masters of the palace, and to hinder Athaliah from taking any measures in opposition to them, and to guard the place of the throne, are nothing but expedients resulting from embarrassment. If there was no intention to put any hindrance in the way of the queen leaving the palace, there could have been none to prevent her taking opposing measures. For the rest, the result obtained by careful consideration of the account in 2 Kings 11, that in 2Ch 23:5, 2Ch 23:6 an occupation by guards, not of the royal palace, but of the temple, is spoken of, does not stand or fall with the supposition that המּלך בּית was the dwelling of the young king in the temple building, and not the palace. The expression המּלך בּית משׁמרת שׁמר, to guard the guard of the king's house, i.e., to have regard to whatever is to be regarded in reference to the king's house, is so indefinite and elastic, that it may have been used of a post which watched from the outer court of the temple what was going on in the palace, which was over against the temple. With this also the corresponding המּלך בּבית, in the short account of the distribution of the guards given by the chronicler (2Ch 23:5), may be reconciled, if we translate it “at the house of the king,” and call to mind that, according to 2Ki 16:18 and 1Ki 10:5, there was a special approach from the palace to the temple for the king, which this division may have had to guard. But notwithstanding the guarding of this way, Athaliah could come from the palace into the court of the temple by another way, or perhaps the guards were less watchful at their posts during the solemnity of the young king's coronation.
And not less groundless is the assertion that the priest Jehoiada availed himself in the execution of his plan, according to 2 Kings 11, mainly of the co-operation of the royal body-guard, according to the Chronicle mainly of that of the Levites; or that the chronicler, as Thenius expresses it, “has made the body-guards of 2 Kings into Levites, in order to diver to the priesthood the honour which belonged to the Praetorians.” The המּאות שׂרי, mentioned by name in the Chronicle, with whom Jehoiada discussed his plan, and who had command of the guards when it was carried out, are not called Levites, and may consequently have been captains of the executioners and runners, i.e., of the royal body-guard, as they are designated in 2Ki 11:4. But the men who occupied the various posts are called in both texts השּׁבּת בּאי (2Ki 11:5; 2Ch 23:4): in 2Ki 11:7 and 2Ki 11:9, the corresponding השּׁבּת יצאי is added; while in the Chronicle the השׁבת באי are expressly called Levites, the words וללויּם לכּהנים being added. But we know from Luk 1:5, compared with 1 Chron 24, that the priests and Levites performed the service in the temple in courses from one Sabbath to another, while we have no record of any such arrangement as to the service of the Praetorians; so that we must understand the words “coming on the Sabbath” (entering upon the service), and “going on the Sabbath” (those relieved from it), of the Levites in the first place. Had it been intended that by these words in 2 Kings 11 we should understand Praetorians, it must necessarily have been clearly said. From the words spoken to the centurions of the body-guard, “the third part of you,” etc., it does not follow at all as a matter of course that they were so, any more than from the fact that in 2Ki 11:11, the posts set are called הרצים, the runners = satellites. If we suppose that in this extraordinary case the Levitic temple servants were placed under the command of centurions of the royal body-guard, who were in league with the high priest, the designation of the men they commanded by the name רצים, satellites, is fully explained; the men having been previously more accurately described as those who were entering upon and being relieved from service on the Sabbath. In this way I have explained the matter in my apologet. Versuch über die Chron. S. 362ff., but this explanation of it has neither been regarded nor confuted by Thenius and Bertheau. Even the mention of כּרי and רצים along with the captains and the whole people, in 2Ki 11:19, is not inconsistent with it; for we may without difficulty suppose, as has been said in my commentary on that verse, that the royal body-guard, immediately after the slaughter of Athaliah, went over to the young king just crowned, in order that they, along with the remainder of the people who were assembled in the court, might lead him thence to the royal palace. There is only one statement in the two texts which can scarcely be reconciled with this conjecture, - namely, the mention of the רצים and of the people in the temple before Athaliah was slain (2Ch 23:12 and 2Ki 11:13 Kings), since it follows from that that runners or satellites belonging to the body-guard were either posted, or had assembled with the others, in the court of the temple. To meet this statement, we must suppose that the centurions of the body-guard employed not merely the Levitic temple guard, but also some of the royal satellites, upon whose fidelity they could rely, to occupy the posts mentioned in 2Ki 11:5-7 and 2Ch 23:4, 2Ch 23:5 ; so that the company under the command of the centurions who occupied the various posts in the temple consisted partly of Levitic temple guards, and partly of royal body-guards. But even on this view, the suspicion that the chronicler has mentioned the Levites instead of the body-guard is shown to be groundless and unjust, since the רצים also are mentioned in the Chronicle.
According to this exposition, the true relation between the account in the Chronicle and that in the book of Kings would seem to be something like this: Both accounts mention merely the main points of the proceedings, - the author of the book of Kings emphasizing the part played in the affair by the royal body-guard; the author of the Chronicle, on the other hand, emphasizing that played by the Levites: so that both accounts mutually supplement each other, and only when taken together give a full view of the circumstances. We have still to make the following remarks on the narrative of the Chronicle in detail. The statement (2Ki 11:5) that all those relived on the Sabbath were to keep guard of the house of Jahve, in reference to the king, in two divisions, is in 2Ch 23:5, thus generalized: “all the people were in the courts of the house of Jahve.” כּל־העם is all the people except the before-mentioned bodies of men with their captains, and comprehends not only the remainder of the people mentioned in 2Ki 11:13 and 2Ki 11:19, who came to the temple without any special invitation, but also the body of guards who were relieved from service on Sabbath. This is clear from 2Ch 23:8 of the Chronicle, where we have the supplementary remark, that those departing on the Sabbath also, as well as those coming, did what Jehoiada commanded. In addition to this, in 2Ch 23:6 this further command of Jehoiada is communicated: Let no one enter the house of Jahve (יהוה בּית is the temple building, i.e., the holy place and the most holy, as distinguished from the courts), save the priests, and they that minister of the Levites, i.e., of those Levites who perform the service, who are consecrated thereto; but all the people shall keep the watch of the Lord, i.e., keep what is to be observed in reference to Jahve, i.e., here, to keep without the limits appointed in the law to the people in drawing near to the sanctuaries. The whole verse, therefore, contains only an elucidation of the command that all the people were to remain in the courts, and not to press farther into the sanctuary.

Verse 7

2Ch 23:7 “And the Levites shall compass the king round about, each with his weapons in his hand.” The Levites are the bodies of guards mentioned in 2Ch 23:4, 2Ch 23:5. If we keep that in view, then the following words, “every one who cometh into the house shall be put to death,” say the same as the words, “every one who cometh within the ranks” (2Ki 11:8). A contradiction arises only if we misinterpret הקּיפוּ, and understand it of the forming of a circle around the king; whereas הקּיפוּ, like הקּפתּם (Kings), is to be understood, according to the context, of the setting of the guards both at the temple gate and in the courts, so that whoever entered the court of the temple came within the ranks of the guards thus placed.

Verses 8-10

The account of the occupation of the temple thus arranged agrees with 2Ki 11:9-11. Instead of המּאות שׂרי (Kings), in 2Ch 23:8 are very fittingly named “the Levites (as in 2Ch 23:5) and all Judah,” viz., in its chiefs, since the high priest had assured himself of the support of the heads of the fathers'-houses of Israel (2Ch 23:2). Further, to the statement that those who were departing from the service also took part in the affair, it is added, “for Jehoiada had not dismissed the courses.” המּחלקות are the divisions which, according to the arrangement made by David (1 Chron 24-26), had charge of the temple service at that time. To the captains Jehoiada gave the spears and shields which had been presented to the temple by David as offerings, because they had come into the temple without weapons; see on 2Ki 11:10. ויּעמד, “and he caused the whole people to take position,” is connected formally with ויּתּן, 2Ch 23:9; while in 2Ki 11:11, we have simply ויּעמדוּ.

Verse 11

The coronation of Joash, as in 2Ki 11:12. The subject of ויּוציאוּ and ויּתּנוּ is those present, while in ויּוציא and ויּתּן (Kings), Jehoiada as leader of the whole is referred to. In the Chronicle, Jehoiada and his sons, i.e., the high priest with the priests assisting him, are expressly named as subject to ימליכוּ and ויּמשׁצהוּ, where in Kings also the plural is used; while, on the contrary, “the clapping of the hands” as a sign of joyful acclamation (Kings) is omitted, as being unimportant.

Verses 12-15

Slaughter of Athaliah, as in 2Ki 11:13-16. In 2Ch 23:13 of the Chronicle, the statement that the assembled people played on instruments is expanded by the addition, “and singing with instruments of song, and proclaiming aloud to praise,” i.e., and praising. ויּוצא, 2Ch 23:14, is an orthographical error for ויצו (Kings).

Verses 16-21

2Ch 23:16-21The renewal of the covenant, extirpation of Baal-worship, and the solemn entry of the king into his palace, as in 2Ki 11:17-20, and already commented on in that place. The remark as to the renewal of the covenant is in 2Ch 23:16 (Chron.) somewhat more brief than in 2Ki 11:17; and בּינו, between himself, the same as between himself, the high priest, as representative of Jehovah. In 2Ki 11:17, the matter is more clearly expressed. In 2Ki 11:18., the statement, “the priest set overseers over the house of Jahve,” is expanded by the addition of the words, “by means of the Levitic priests whom David had distributed for the house of Jahve to offer sacrifices;...and he placed doorkeepers at the doors of the house of Jahve,” etc. The meaning is: Jehoiada again introduced the old arrangement of the public worship in the temple as David had settled it, it having either fallen into decay or wholly ceased under the rule of the idolatrous Athaliah. As to the remainder, see on 2Ki 11:19 and 2Ki 11:20.

Chap. 24

Verses 1-3

2Ch 24:1-3The reign of Joash; cf. 2 Kings 12. - In both accounts only two main events in Joash's reign of forty years are narrated at any length, - the repair of the temple, and the campaign of the Syrian king Hazael against Jerusalem. Besides this, at the beginning, we have a statement as to the duration and spirit of his reign; and in conclusion, the murder of Joash in consequence of a conspiracy is mentioned. Both accounts agree in all essential points, but are shown to be extracts containing the most important part of a more complete history of Joash, by the fact that, on the one hand, in 2 Kings 12 single circumstances are communicated in a more detailed and more exact form than that in which the Chronicle states them; while, on the other hand, the account of the Chronicle supplements the account in 2 Kings 12 in many respects. To these latter belong the account of the marriage of Joash, and his many children, the account of the death of Jehoiada at the age of 130 years, and his honourable burial with the kings, etc.; see on 2Ch 24:15.

Verses 4-10

As to the repair of the temple, see the commentary on 2Ki 12:5-17, where both the formal divergences and the essential agreement of the two narratives are pointed out.

Verses 11-12

2Ch 24:11-12 וגו יביא בּעת ויהי, translate: It came to pass at the time when they brought the chest to the guard of the king by the Levites, i.e., to the board of oversight appointed by the king from among the Levites. עת stat. constr. before a sentence following. בּכום ליום does not denote every day, but every time when there was much money in the chest.

Verse 13

2Ch 24:13 ארוּכה ותּעל, and there was a band laid upon the work, i.e., the restoration of the house of God was furthered; cf. for this symbolical expression, Neh 4:1; Jer 8:7.

Verse 14

2Ch 24:14 כּלים ויּעשׂהוּ, therefrom (the king) caused to be made (prepared) vessels for the house of Jahve, (namely) vessels of the service, i.e., according to Num 4:12, in the holy place, and for the offering of burnt-offering, i.e., altar vessels, and (besides) bowls, and (other) vessels of gold and silver. The last clause of 2Ch 24:14 leads on to the following: “They (king and people) offered burnt-offering continually so long as Jehoiada lived.”

Verses 15-16

2Ch 24:15-16Jehoiada's death: the fall of the people into idolatry: the protest of the prophet Zechariah against it, and the stoning of him. - This section is not found in 2 Kings 12, but is important for the understanding of the later history of Joash (2Ch 24:23.). With the death of the grey-haired high priest came a turning-point in the reign of Joash. Jehoiada had saved the life and throne of Joash, preserved to the kingdom the royal house of David, to which the promises belonged, and had put an end to the idolatry which had been transplanted into Judah by Joram's marriage into the royal house of Ahab, restoring the Jahve-worship. For this he was honoured at his death, his body being laid in the city of David among the kings: “For he had done good in Israel, and towards God and His house” (the temple). According to 2Ki 12:7, he still took an active part in the repair of the temple in the twenty-third year of Joash, and according to 2Ch 24:14 he lived for some time after the completion of that work. But after his death the people soon forgot the benefits they owed him.

Verses 17-20

The princes of Judah besought the king to allow them to worship the Astartes and idols, and the king hearkened to them, did not venture to deny their request. למּלך ישׁתּחווּ, they bowed themselves before the king, i.e., they besought him. What they thus beseechingly requested is not stated, but may be gathered from what they did, according to 2Ch 24:18. They forsook Jahve the God of their fathers, etc. There came wrath upon Judah because of this their trespass. קצף, a wrathful judgment of the Lord, cf. 2Ch 29:8, viz., the invasion of the land by Hazael, 2Ch 24:23. On the construction זאת אשׁמתם, cf. Ew. §293, c, S. 740. Against this defection prophets whom the Lord sent did indeed lift up their testimony, but they would not hearken to them. Of these prophets, one, Zechariah the son of the high priest Jehoiada, is mentioned by name in 2Ch 24:20., who, seized by the Spirit of the Lord, announced to the people divine punishment for their defection, and was thereupon, at the king's command, stoned in the court of the temple. With לבשׁה רוּח cf. 1Ch 12:18, and the commentary on Jdg 6:34. לעם מעל, above the people, viz., as we learn from 2Ch 24:21, in the inner, higher-lying court, so that he was above the people who were in the outer court. “Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, and (why) will ye not prosper?” Fidelity to the Lord is the condition of prosperity. If Israel forsake the Lord, the Lord will also forsake it; cf. 2Ch 12:5; 2Ch 15:2.

Verses 21-22

And they (the princes and the people) conspired against him, and stoned him, at the command of the king, in the court of the temple. This זכריה is the Ζαχαρίας whose slaughter is mentioned by Christ in Mat 23:36 and Luk 11:51 as the last prophet-murder narrated in the Old Testament, whose blood would come upon the people, although Matthew calls him υἱὸς Βαραχίου. According to these passages, he was slain between the temple and the altar of burnt-offering, consequently in the most sacred part of the court of the priests. That the king, Joash, could give the command for this murder, shows how his compliance with the princes’ demands (2Ch 24:17) had made him the slave of sin. Probably the idolatrous princes accused the witness for God of being a seditious person and a rebel against the majesty of the crown, and thereby extorted from the weak king the command for his death. For it is not said that Joash himself worshipped the idols; and even in 2Ch 24:22 it is only the base ingratitude of which Joash had been guilty, in the slaughter of the son of his benefactor, which is adduced against him. But Zechariah at his death said, “May the Lord look upon it, and take vengeance” (דּרשׁ, to seek or require a crime, i.e., punish it). This word became a prophecy, which soon began to be fulfilled, 2Ch 24:23.

Verses 23-27

The punishment comes upon them. Joash afflicted by the invasion of Judah by Hazael the Syrian; and his death in consequence of a conspiracy against him. - These two events are narrated in 2Ki 12:18-21 also, the progress of Hazael's invasion being more exactly traced; see the commentary on 2Ki 12:18. The author of the Chronicle brings forward only those parts of it which show how God punished Joash for his defection from Him.
“At the revolution of a year,” i.e., scarcely a year after the murder of the prophet Zechariah, a Syrian army invaded Judah and advanced upon Jerusalem; “and they destroyed all the princes of the people from among the people,” i.e., they smote the army of Joash in a battle, in which the princes (the chief and leaders) were destroyed, i.e., partly slain, partly wounded. This punishment came upon the princes as the originators of the defection from the Lord, 2Ch 24:17. “And they sent all their booty to the king (Hazael) to Damascus.” In this booty the treasures which Joash gave to the Syrians (2Ki 12:19) to buy their withdrawal are also included. In order to show that this invasion of the Syrians was a divine judgment, it is remarked in 2Ch 24:24 that the Syrians, with a small army, gained a victory over the very large army of Judah, and executed judgment upon Joash. שׁפטים עשׂה, as in Exo 12:12; Num 33:4, frequently in Ezekiel, usually construed with בּ, here with את, analogous to the את טּוב עשׂה, e.g., 1Sa 24:19. These words refer to the wounding of Joash, and its results, 2Ch 24:25. In the war Joash was badly wounded; the Syrians on their withdrawal had left him behind in many wounds (מחליים only met with here, synonymous with תּחלאים,   2Ch 21:19). Then his own servants, the court officials named in 2Ch 24:26, conspired against him, and smote him upon his bed. In 2Ki 12:21, the place where the king, lying sick upon his bed, was slain is stated. He met with his end thus, “because of the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest” which had been shed. The plural בּני is perhaps only an orthographical error for בּן, occasioned by the preceding דּמי (Berth.); but more probably it is, like בּנין,   2Ch 28:3 and 2Ch 33:6, a rhetorical plural, which says nothing as to the number, but only brings out that Joash had brought blood-guiltiness upon himself in respect of the children of his benefactor Jehoiada; see on 2Ch 28:3. Upon the murdered king, moreover, the honour of being buried in the graves of the kings was not bestowed; cf. 2Ch 21:20. On the names of the two conspirators, 2Ch 24:26, see on 2Ki 12:21. In 2Ch 24:27 it is doubtful how ורב is to be read. The Keri demands ירב, which Berth. understands thus: And as regards his sons, may the utterance concerning him increase; which might signify, “May the wish of the dying Zechariah, 2Ch 24:22, be fulfilled on them in a still greater degree than on their father.” But that is hardly the meaning of the Keri. The older theologians took ירב relatively: et quam creverit s. multiplicatum fuerit. Without doubt, the Keth. ורב or ורב is the correct reading. המּשּׂא, too, is variously interpreted. Vulg., Luther, and others take it to be synonymous with משׂאת, 2Ch 24:6, 2Ch 24:9, and understand it of the money derived from Moses' tax; but to that עליו is by no means suitable. Others (as Then.) think of the tribute laid upon him, 2Ki 12:19, but very arbitrarily. On the other hand, Clericus and others rightly understand it of prophetic threatenings against him, corresponding to the statement in 2Ch 24:19, that God sent prophets against him. As to the Midrash of the book of Kings, see the Introduction.

Chap. 25

Verses 1-4

The statement as to the duration and spirit of the reign agrees with 2Ki 14:1-6, except that in 2Ch 25:2 the estimation of the spirit of the reign according to the standard of David, “only not as his ancestor David, but altogether as his father Joash did,” which we find in the book of Kings, is replaced by “only not with a perfect heart;” and the standing formula, “only the high places were not removed,” etc., is omitted.
The succeeding section, 2Ch 25:5-16, enlarges upon Amaziah's preparations for war with Edom, which had revolted under Joram of Judah, 2Ki 8:22; upon the victory over the Edomites in the Valley of Salt, and on the results of this war; - on all which we have in 2Ki 14:7 only this short note: “he smote Edom in the valley of Salt 10,000 men, and took Selah in war, and called its name Joktheel unto this day.” But the more exact statements of the Chronicle as to the preparations and the results of this war and victory are important for Amaziah's later war with Kings Joash of Israel, which is narrated in 2Ch 25:17. of our chapter, because in them lie the causes of that war, so fatal to Amaziah; so that the history of Amaziah is essentially supplemented by those statements of the Chronicle which are not found in 2 Kings.

Verses 5-7

2Ch 25:5-7The preparations for the war against Edom, and the victory over the Edomites in the Valley of Salt. - 2Ch 25:5. Amaziah assembled Judah, i.e., the men in his kingdom capable of bearing arms, and set them up (ordered them) according to the princes of thousands and hundreds, of all Judah and Benjamin, and passed them in review, i.e., caused a census to be taken of the men liable to military service from twenty years old and upward. They found 300,000 warriors “bearing spear and target” (cf. 2Ch 14:7); a relatively small number, not merely in comparison with the numbers under Jehoshaphat, 2Ch 17:14., which are manifestly too large, but also with the numberings made by other kings, e.g., Asa, 2Ch 14:7. By Joram's unfortunate wars, 2Ch 21:17, those of Ahaziah, and especially by the defeat which Joash sustained from the Syrians, 2Ch 24:23, the number of men in Judah fit for war may have been very much reduced. Amaziah accordingly sought to strengthen his army against the Edomites, according to 2Ch 25:6, by having an auxiliary corps of 100,000 men from Israel (of the ten tribes) for 100 talents of silver, i.e., he took them into his pay. But a prophet advised him not to take the Israelitish host with him, because Jahve was not with Israel, viz., on account of their defection from Jahve by the introduction of the calf-worship. To Israel there is added, (with) all the sons of Ephraim, to guard against any misunderstanding.

Verse 8

Amaziah is to go alone, and show himself valiant in war, and the Lord will help him to conquer. This is without doubt the thought in 2Ch 25:8, which, however, does not seem to be contained in the traditional Masoretic text. האל יכשׁילך can hardly, after the preceding imperatives - do, be strong for battle - be otherwise translated than by, “and God will cause thee to stumble before the enemy.” But this is quite unsuitable. Clericus, therefore, would take the words ironically: sin minus, tu vadito, etc.; i.e., if thou dost not follow my advice, and takest the Israelites with thee to the war, go, show thyself strong for the war, God will soon cause thee to stumble. But אם כּי can never signify sin minus. Others, as Schmidt and Ramb., translate: Rather do thou go alone (without the Israelitish auxiliaries), and be valiant, alioquin enim, si illos tecum duxeris, corruere te faciet Deus; or, May God make thee fall before the enemy (De Wette). But the supplying of alioquin, which is only hidden by De Wette's translation, cannot be grammatically justified. This interpretation of the יכשׁילך would be possible only if the negation לא אם כּי stood in the preceding clause and יכשׁילך was joined to it by ו. The traditional text is clearly erroneous, and we must, with Ewald and Berth., supply a לא or ולא before יכשׁילך: God thou (alone), do, be valiant for battle, and God will not let thee come to ruin.^[12]
After this we have very fittingly the reason assigned: “for with God there is power to help, and to cause to fall.”

Verses 9-10

Amaziah had regard to this exhortation of the prophet, and asked him only what he should do for the 100 talents of silver which he had paid the Israelite auxiliary corps; to which the prophet answered that Jahve could give him more than that sum. Amaziah thereupon dismissed the hired Ephraimite mercenaries. יבדּילם, he separated them (sc., from his army prepared for battle), viz., the band, that they might go to their place, i.e., might return home. The ל before הגּדוּד is nota accus., and להגּדוּד is in apposition to the suffix in יבדּילם. But the auxiliaries thus dismissed returned home full of wrath against Judah, and afterwards fell upon the border cities of Judah, wasting and plundering (2Ch 25:13). Their anger probably arose from the fact that by their dismissal the opportunity of making a rich booty in war was taken away.

Verses 11-12

But Amaziah courageously led his people into the Valley of Salt, and smote the Edomites. התחזק, as in 2Ch 15:8, refers back to חזק, 2Ch 25:8 : he showed himself strong, according to the word of the prophet. As to the Valley of Salt, see on 2Sa 8:13 and 1Ch 18:12. Besides the 10,000 slain in the battle, the men of Judah took 10,000 other Edomites prisoners, whom they cast from the top of a rock. This statement is wanting in 2Ki 14:7, where, instead of it, the capture of the city Sela (Petra) is mentioned. The conjecture of Thenius, that this last statement of the Chronicle has been derived from a text of the Kings which had become illegible at this place, has already been rejected as untenable by Bertheau. Except the word סלע, the two texts have nothing in common with each other; but it does suggest itself that הסּלע ראשׁ, the top of the rock (which has become famous by this event), is to be looked for in the neighbourhood of the city Selah, as the war was ended only by the capture of Selah. Besides the battle in the Valley of Salt there were still further battles; and in the numbers 10,000, manifestly the whole of the prisoners taken in the war are comprehended, who, as irreconcilable enemies of Judah, were not made slaves, but were slain by being thrown down from a perpendicular rock.

Verse 13

The Ephraimite host dismissed by Amaziah fell plundering upon the cities of Judah, and smote of them (the inhabitants of these cities) 3000, and carried away great booty. They would seem to have made this devastating attack on their way home; but to this idea, which at first suggests itself, the more definite designation of the plundered cities, “from Samaria to Bethhoron,” does not correspond, for these words can scarcely be otherwise understood than as denoting that Samaria was the starting-point of the foray, and not the limit up to which the plundered cities reached. For this reason Berth. thinks that this attack upon the northern cities of Judah was probably carried out only at a later period, when Amaziah and his army were in Edom. The latter is certainly the more probable supposition; but the course of events can hardly have been, that the Ephraimite auxiliary corps, after Amaziah had dismissed it, returned home to Samaria, and then later, when Amaziah had marched into the Valley of Salt, made this attack upon the cities of Judah, starting from Samaria. It is more probable that the dismissal of this auxiliary corps, which Amaziah had certainly obtained on hire from King Joash, happened after they had been gathered together in Samaria, and had advanced to the frontier of Judah. Then, roused to anger by their dismissal, they did not at once separate and return home; but, Amaziah having meanwhile taken the field against the Edomites with his army, made an attack upon the northern frontier cities of Judah as far as Bethhoron, plundering as they went, and only after this plundering did they return home. As to Bethhoron, now Beit-Ur, see on 1Ch 7:24.

Verses 14-15

2Ch 25:14-15Amaziah's idolatry. - 2Ch 25:14. On his return from smiting the Edomites, i.e., from the war in which he had smitten the Edomites, Amaziah brought the gods (images) of the sons of Seir (the inhabitants of Mount Seir) with him, and set them up as gods, giving them religious adoration.^[13]
In order to turn him away from this sin, which would certainly kindle Jahve's wrath, a prophet said to Amaziah, “Why dost thou seek the gods of the people, who have not delivered their people out of your hand?” The prophet keeps in view the motive which had induced the king to set up and worship the Edomite idols, viz., the belief of all polytheists, that in order to make a people subject, one must seek to win over their gods (cf. on this belief that remarks on Num 22:17), and exposes the folly of this belief by pointing out the impotence of the Edomite idols, which Amaziah himself had learnt to know.

Verse 16

The king, however, in his blindness puts aside this earnest warning with proud words: “Have we made thee a counsellor of the king? Forbear, why should they smite thee?” נתנּוּך is spoken collectively: We, the king, and the members of the council. And the prophet ceased, only answering the king thus: “I know that God hath determined to destroy thee, because thou hast done this (introduced Edomite idols), and hast not hearkened unto my counsel.” The prophet calls his warning “counsel,” referring to the king's word, that he was not appointed a counsellor to the king.

Verses 17-24

2Ch 25:17-24 The war with Joash, king of Israel. - Instead of following the counsel of the prophet, Amaziah consulted (sc., with his public officials or courtiers), and challenged King Joash of Israel to war. The challenge, and the war which followed, are also narrated in 2Ki 14:8-14 in agreement with our account, and have been already commented upon at that place, where we have also considered the occasion of this war, so fatal to Amaziah and the kingdom of Judah, on account of which has been handed down to us only in the supplementary narrative of the Chronicle. לך in 2Ch 25:17 for לכה, come, as in Num 23:13 and Jdg 19:13. - In 2Ch 25:20 the chronicler explains Amaziah's refusal to hear the warning of Joash before the war with him, by a reference to the divine determination: “For it (came) of God (that Amaziah still went to war), that He might deliver them (the men of Judah) into the hand, because they had sought the gods of Edom.” בּיד נתן, to give into the power of the enemy. - In 2Ch 25:23, הפּונה שׁער is a manifest error for הפּנּה (2Ki 14:13). Were הפּונה, the gate that turns itself, faces (in some direction), correct, the direction would have to be given towards which it turned, e.g., Eze 8:3. - וגו וכל־הזּהב, 2Ch 25:24, still depends upon תּפשׂ, 2Ch 25:23 : and (took away) all the gold, etc. In 2Ki 14:14, ולקח is supplied.The end of Amaziah's reign; cf. 2Ki 14:17-20. - Although conquered and taken prisoner by Joash, Amaziah did not lose the throne. For Joash, contented with the carrying away of the treasures of the temple and of the palace, and the taking of hostages, set him again at liberty, so that he continued to reign, and outlived Joash by about fifteen years.

Verse 26

On the book of the kings of Judah and Israel, see the Introduction.

Verses 27-28

On the conspiracy against Amaziah, his death, etc., see the commentary on 2Ki 14:17. יהוּדה בּעיר, in the city of Judah, is surprising, since everywhere else “the city of David” is mentioned as the burial-place, and even in our passage all the ancient versions have “in the city of David.” יהוּדה would therefore seem to be an orthographical error for דויד, occasioned by the immediately following יהוּדה.

Chap. 26

Verses 1-5

The statements as to Uzziah's attainment of dominion, the building of the seaport town Elath on the Red Sea, the length and character of his reign (2Ch 26:1-4), agree entirely with 2Ki 14:21-22, and 2Ki 15:2-3; see the commentary on these passages. Uzziah (עזּיּהוּ) is called in 1Ch 3:12 and in 2 Kings (generally) Azariah (עזריה); cf. on the use of the two names, the commentary on 2Ki 14:21. - In 2Ch 26:5, instead of the standing formula, “only the high places were not removed,” etc.) Kings), Uzziah's attitude towards the Lord is more exactly defined thus: “He was seeking God in the days of Zechariah, who instructed him in the fear of God; and in the days when he sought Jahve, God gave him success.” In לדרשׁ ויהי the infinitive with ל is subordinated to היה, to express the duration of his seeking, for which the participle is elsewhere used. Nothing further is known of the Zechariah here mentioned: the commentators hold him to have been an important prophet; for had he been a priest, or the high priest, probably הכּהן would have been used. The reading האלהים בּראות (Keth.) is surprising. ה המּבין ב can only denote, who had insight into (or understanding for the) seeing of God; cf. Dan 1:17. But Kimchi's idea, which other old commentators share, that this is a periphrasis to denote the prophetic endowment or activity of the man, is opposed by this, that “the seeing of God” which was granted to the elders of Israel at the making of the covenant, Exo 24:10, cannot be regarded as a thing within the sphere of human action or practice, while the prophetic beholding in vision is essentially different from the seeing of God, and is, moreover, never so called. בראות would therefore seem to be an orthographical error for ביראת, some MSS having ביראות or ביראת (cf. de Rossi, variae lectt.); and the lxx, Syr., Targ., Arab., Raschi, Kimchi, and others giving the reading בּיראת ה המּבין, who was a teacher (instructor) in the fear of God, in favour of which also Vitringa, proll. in Jes. p. 4, has decided.Wars, buildings, and army of Uzziah. - Of the successful undertakings by which Uzziah raised the kingdom of Judah to greater worldly power and prosperity, nothing is said in the book of Kings; but the fact itself is placed beyond all doubt, for it is confirmed by the portrayal of the might and greatness of Judah in the prophecies of Isaiah (Isa 2-4), ), which date from the times of Uzziah and Jotham.

Verse 6

After Uzziah had, in the very beginning of his reign, completed the subjection of the Edomites commenced by his father by the capture and fortification of the seaport Elath (2Ch 26:2), he took the field to chastise the Philistines and Arabians, who had under Joram made an inroad upon Judah and plundered Jerusalem (2Ch 21:16.). In the war against the Philistines he broke down the walls of Gath, Jabneh, and Ashdod (i.e., after capturing these cities), and built cities in Ashdod, i.e., in the domain of Ashdod, and בּפּלשׁתּים, i.e., in other domains of the Philistines, whence we gather that he had wholly subdued Philistia. The city of Gath had been already taken from the Philistines by David; see 1Ch 18:1; and as to situation, see on 1Ch 11:8. Jabneh, here named for the first time, but probably occurring in Jos 15:11 under the name Jabneel, is often mentioned under the name Jamnia in the books of the Maccabees and in Josephus. It is now a considerable village, Jebnah, four hours south of Joppa, and one and a half hours from the sea; see on Jos 15:11. Ashdod is now a village called Esdud; see on Jos 13:3.

Verse 7

As against the Philistines, so also against the Arabians, who dwelt in Gur-baal, God helped him, and against the Maanites, so that he overcame them and made them tributary. Gur-baal occurs only here, and its position is unknown. According to the Targum, the city Gerar is supposed to be intended; Lxx translate ἐπὶ τῆς Πέτρας, having probably had the capital city of the Edomites, Petra, in their thoughts. The מעוּנים are the inhabitants of Maan; see on 1Ch 4:41.

Verse 8

And the Ammonites also paid him tribute (מנחה), and his name spread abroad even to the neighbourhood of Egypt; i.e., in this connection, not merely that his fame spread abroad to that distance, but that the report of his victorious power reached so far, he having extended his rule to near the frontiers of Egypt, for he was exceedingly powerful. החזיק, to show power, as in Dan 11:7.

Verse 9

In order enduringly to establish the power of his kingdom, he still more strongly fortified Jerusalem by building towers at the gates, and the wall of the citadel. At the corner gate, i.e., at the north-west corner of the city (see on 2Ch 25:23 and 2Ki 14:13), and at the valley gate, i.e., on the west side, where the Jaffa gate now is. From these sides Jerusalem was most open to attack. המּקצוע, at the corner, i.e., according to Neh 3:19., Neh 3:24., on the east side of Zion, at the place where the wall of Zion crossed over at an angle to the Ophel, and joined itself to the south wall of the temple hill, so that the tower at this corner defended both Zion and the temple hill against attack from the valley to the south-east. ויחזּקם, he made them (there) strong or firm; not, he put them in a condition of defence (Berth.), although the making strong was for that end.

Verse 10

Moreover, Uzziah took measures for the defence of his herds, which formed one main part of his revenues and wealth. He built towers in the wilderness, in the steppe-lands on the west side of the Dead Sea, so well fitted for cattle-breeding (i.e., in the wilderness of Judah), to protect the herds against the attacks of the robber peoples of Edom and Arabia. And he dug many wells to water the cattle; “for he had much cattle” in the wilderness just mentioned, and “in the lowland” (Shephelah) on the Mediterranean Sea (see 1Ch 27:28), and “in the plain” (מישׁור), i.e., the flat land on the east side of the Dead Sea, extending from Arnon to near Heshbon in the north, and to the northeast as far as Rabbath Ammon (see on Deu 3:10), i.e., the tribal land of Reuben, which accordingly at that time belonged to Judah. Probably it had been taken from the Israelites by the Moabites and Ammonites, and reconquered from them by Uzziah, and incorporated with his kingdom; for, according to 2Ch 26:8, he had made the Ammonites tributary; cf. on 1Ch 5:17. Husbandmen and vine-dressers had he in the mountains and upon Carmel, for he loved husbandry. After וגו אכּרים, לו היוּ is to be supplied. אדמה, the land, which is cultivated, stands here for agriculture. As to Carmel, see on Jos 19:26.

Verse 11

His army. He had a host of fighting men that went out to war by bands (לגדוּד, in bands), “in the number of their muster by Jeiel the scribe, and Maaseiah the steward (שׁטר), under Hananiah, one of the king's captains.” The meaning is: that the mustering by which the host was arranged in bands or detachments for war service, was undertaken by (בּיד) two officials practised in writing and the making up of lists, who were given as assistants to Hananiah, one of the princes of the kingdom (יד על), or placed at his disposal.

Verses 12-13

The total number of the heads of the fathers'-houses in valiant heroes (לגבּורי with ל of subordination) was 2600, and under these (ידם על, to their hand, i.e., subordinate to them) an army of 307,500 warriors with mighty power, to help the king against the enemy. The army was consequently divided according to the fathers'-houses, so that probably each father's-house formed a detachment (גּדוּד) led by the most valiant among them.

Verse 14

Uzziah supplied this force with the necessary weapons-shield, lance, helmet, and coat of mail, bows and sling-stones. להם is more closely defined by לכל.

Verse 15

Besides this, he provided Jerusalem with machines for defence on the towers and battlements. חשּׁבנות from השּׁבון, literally excogitata, i.e., machinae, with the addition “invention of the artificers,” are ingenious machines, and as we learn from the following וגו לירוא, slinging machines, similar or corresponding to the catapultae and ballistae of the Romans, by which arrows were shot and great stones propelled. Thus his name spread far abroad (cf. 2Ch 26:8), for he was marvellously helped till he was strong.Uzziah's pride, and chastisement by leprosy. His death and burial. - The fact that the Lord smote Uzziah with leprosy, which continued until his death, so that he was compelled to dwell in a hospital, and to allow his son Jotham to conduct the government, is narrated also in 2Ki 15:5; but the cause of this punishment inflicted on him by God is stated only in our verses.

Verse 16

2Ch 26:16 “When Uzziah had become mighty (כּחזקתו as in 2Ch 12:1), his heart was lifted up (in pride) unto destructive deeds.” He transgressed against Jahve his God, and came into the sanctuary of Jahve to offer incense upon the altar of incense. With a lofty feeling of his power, Uzziah wished to make himself high priest of his kingdom, like the kings of Egypt and of other nations, whose kings were also summi pontifices, and to unite all power in his person, like Moses, who consecrated Aaron and his sons to be priests. Then. and Ewald, indeed, think that the powerful Uzziah wished merely to restore the high-priesthood exercised by David and Solomon; but though both these kings did indeed arrange and conduct religious festal solemnities, yet they never interfered in any way with the official duties reserved for the priests by the law. The arrangement of a religious solemnity, the dedicatory prayer at the dedication of the temple, and the offering of sacrifices, are not specifically priestly functions, as the service by the altars, and the entering into the holy place of the temple, and other sacrificial acts were.

Verses 17-20

The king's purpose was consequently opposed by the high priest Azariah and eighty priests, valiant men, who had the courage to represent to him that to burn incense to the Lord did not appertain to the king, but only to the sanctified Aaronite priests; but the king, with the censer in his hand, was angry, and the leprosy suddenly broke out upon his forehead. When the priests saw the leprosy, they removed the king immediately from the holy place; and Uzziah himself also hurried to go forth, because Jahve had smitten him; for he recognised in the sudden breaking out of the leprosy a punishment from God. Azariah is called הראשׁ כּהן, i.e., a high priest, and is in all probability the same person as the high priest mentioned in 1Ch 6:10 (see on the passage). לכבוד לך לא, “It (the offering of incense) is not for thine honour before Jahve.” זעף, to foam up in anger. וּבזעפּו, and while he foamed against the priests, i.e., was hot against them, the leprosy had broken out. מעל־למּזבּח, from by = near, the altar. Thus was Uzziah visited with the same punishment, for his haughty disregard of the divinely appointed privileges of the priesthood, as was once inflicted upon Miriam for her rebellion against the prerogatives assigned to Moses by God (Num 12:10).

Verse 21

But Uzziah had to bear his punishment until his death, and dwelt the rest of his life in a separate house, while his son conducted the government for him. This is also recorded in 2Ki 15:5 (cf. for החפשׁית בּית the commentary on that passage). The reason of the separation of the king from intercourse with others, by his dwelling in the hospital, is given in the Chronicle in the words: “for he was cut off (shut out) from the house of Jahve.” This reason can only mean, that because he, as a leper, was shut out from the house of the Lord, he could not live in fellowship with the people of God, but must dwell in a separate house. For the rest, we cannot exactly say how long Uzziah continued to live under the leprosy; but from the fact that his son Jotham, who at Uzziah's death was twenty-five years old, conducted the government for him, so much is clear, viz., that it can only have lasted a year or two.

Verse 22

The history of his reign was written by the prophet Isaiah (see the Introduction).

Verse 23

At his death, Uzziah, having died in leprosy, was not buried in the graves of the kings, but only in the neighbourhood of them, in the burial-field which belonged to the kings, that his body might not defile the royal graves.

Chap. 27

Verses 1-2

Jotham having ascended the throne at the age of twenty-five, reigned altogether in the spirit and power of his father, with the single limitation that he did not go into the sanctuary of Jahve (cf. 2Ch 26:16.). This remark is not found in 2 Kings 15, because there Uzziah's intrusion into the temple is also omitted. The people still did corruptly (cf. 2Ch 26:16). This refers, indeed, to the continuation of the worship in the high places, but hints also at the deep moral corruption which the prophets of that time censure (cf. especially Isa 2:5., 2Ch 5:7.; Mic 1:5; Mic 2:1.).

Verses 3-4

He built the upper gate of the house of Jahve, i.e., the northern gate of the inner or upper court (see on 2Ki 15:35); the only work of his reign which is mentioned in the book of Kings. But besides this, he continued the fortifying of Jerusalem, which his father had commenced; building much at the wall of the Ophel. העפל was the name of the southern slope of the temple mountain (see on 2Ch 33:14); the wall of Ophel is consequently the wall connecting Zion with the temple mountain, at which Uzziah had already built (see on 2Ch 26:9). He likewise carried on his father's buildings for the protection of the herds (2Ch 26:10), building the cities in the mountains of Judah, and castles (בּירניּות,   2Ch 17:12) and towers in the forests of the mountains of Judah (חרשׁים from חרשׁ, a thicket).

Verse 5

He made war upon the king of the Ammonites, and overcame them. The Ammonites had before paid tribute to Uzziah. After his death they would seem to have refused to pay this tribute; and Jotham made them again tributary by force of arms. They were compelled to pay him after their defeat, in that same year, 100 talents of silver, 10,000 cor of wheat, and a similar quantity of barley, as tribute. לו השׁיבוּ זאת: this they brought to him again, i.e., they paid him the same amount as tribute in the second and third years of their subjection also. After three years, consequently, they would seem to have again become independent, or refused the tribute, probably in the last years of Jotham, in which, according to 2Ki 15:37, the Syrian king Rezin and Pekah of Israel began to make attacks upon Judah.

Verses 6-7

By all these undertakings Jotham strengthened himself, sc. in the kingdom, i.e., he attained to greater power, because he made his ways firm before Jahve, i.e., walked stedfastly before Jahve; did not incur guilt by falling away into idolatry, or by faithless infringement of the rights of the Lord (as Uzziah did by his interference with the rights of the priesthood). From the כּל־מלחמתיו in the concluding remark (2Ch 27:7) we learn that he had waged still other successful wars. The older commentators reckon among these wars, the war against Rezin and Pekah, which kings the Lord began in his days to send against Judah (see 2Ki 15:37), but hardly with justice. The position of this note, which is altogether omitted in the Chronicle, at the end of the account of Jotham in 2Ki 15:37, appears to hint that this war broke out only towards the end of Jotham's reign, so that he could not undertake anything important against this foe.

Verses 8-9

The repetition of the chronological statement already given in 2Ch 27:1 is probably to be explained by supposing that two authorities, each of which contained this remark, were used.

Chap. 28

Verses 1-4

In the general statements as to the king's age, and the duration and the spirit of his reign, both accounts (2Ch 28:1-4; 2Ki 16:1-4), agree entirely, with the exception of some unessential divergences; see the commentary on 2Ki 16:1-4. From 2Ch 28:5 onwards both historians go their own ways, so that they coincide only in mentioning the most important events of the reign of this quite untheocratic king. The author of the book of Kings, in accordance with his plan, records only very briefly the advance of the allied kings Rezin and Pekah against Jerusalem, the capture of the seaport Elath by the Syrians, the recourse which the hard-pressed Ahaz had to the help of Tiglath-pileser the king of Assyria, whom he induced, by sending him the temple and palace treasures of gold and silver, to advance upon Damascus, to capture that city, to destroy the Syrian kingdom, to lead the inhabitants away captive to Kir, and to slay King Rezin (2Ch 28:5-9). Then he records how Ahaz, on a visit which he paid the Assyrian king in Damascus, saw an altar which so delighted him, that he sent a pattern of it to the priest Urijah, with the command to build a similar altar for the temple of the Lord, on which Ahaz on his return not only sacrificed himself, but also commanded that all the sacrifices of the congregation should be offered. And finally, he recounts how he laid violent hands on the brazen vessels of the court, and caused the outer covered sabbath way to be removed into the temple because of the king of Assyria (2Ch 28:10-18); and then the history of Ahaz is concluded by the standing formulae (2Ch 28:19, 2Ch 28:20). The author of the Chronicle, on the contrary, depicts in holy indignation against the crimes of the godless Ahaz, how God punished him for his sins. 1. He tells us how God gave Ahaz into the hand of the king of Syria, who smote him and led away many prisoners to Damascus, and into the hand of King Pekah of Israel, who inflicted on him a dreadful defeat, slew 120,000 men, together with a royal prince and two of the highest officials of the court, and carried away 200,000 prisoners-women and children-with a great booty (2Ch 28:5-8); and how the Israelites yet, at the exhortation of the prophet Oded, and of some of the heads of the people who supported the prophet, again freed the prisoners, provided them with food and clothing, and conducted them back to Jericho (2Ch 28:9-15). 2. He records that Ahaz turned to the king of Assyria for help (2Ch 28:16), but that God still further humbled Israel by an invasion of the land by the Edomites, who carried prisoners away (2Ch 28:17); by an attack of the Philistines, who deprived Judah of a great number of cities (2Ch 28:18); and finally also by the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser, who, although Ahaz had sent him the gold and silver of the temple and of the palaces of the kings and princes, yet did not help him, but rather oppressed him (2Ch 28:20.). 3. Then he recounts how, notwithstanding all this, Ahaz sinned still more against Jahve by sacrificing to the idols of the Syrians, cutting up the vessels of the house of God, closing the doors of the temple, and erecting altars and high places in all corners of Jerusalem, and in all the cities of Judah, for the purpose of sacrificing to idols (2Ch 28:22-25). This whole description is planned and wrought out rhetorically; cf. C. P. Caspari, der syrisch-ephraimitische Krieg, S. 42ff. Out of the historical materials, those facts which show how Ahaz, notwithstanding the heavy blows which Jahve inflicted upon him, always sinned more deeply against the Lord his God, are chosen, and oratorically so presented as not only to bring before us the increasing obduracy of Ahaz, but also, by the representation of the conduct of the citizens and warriors of the kingdom of Israel towards the people of Judah who were prisoners, the deep fall of that kingdom.

Verses 5-6

2Ch 28:5-6The war with the Kings Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel. - On the events of this war, so far as they can be ascertained by uniting the statements of our chapter with the summary account in 2 Kings 16, see the commentary on 2Ki 16:5. The author of the Chronicle brings the two main battles prominently forward as illustrations of the way in which Jahve gave Ahaz into the power of his enemies because of his defection from Him. Into the power of the king of Aram. They (ויּכּוּ, and they, the Arameans) smote בו, in him, i.e., they inflicted on his army a great defeat. Just so also ממּנוּ signifies of his army. גּדולה שׁביה, a great imprisonment, i.e., a great number of prisoners. And into the power of the king of Israel, Pekah, who inflicted on him a still greater defeat. He slew in (among) Judah 120,000 men “in one day,” i.e., in a great decisive battle. Judah suffered these defeats because they (the men of Judah) had forsaken Jahve the God of their fathers. Judah's defection from the Lord is not, indeed, expressly mentioned in the first verses of the chapter, but may be inferred as a matter of course from the remark as to the people under Jotham, 2Ch 27:2. If under that king, who did that which was right in the eyes of Jahve, and stedfastly walked before the Lord (2Ch 27:6), they did corruptly, they must naturally have departed much further from the God of the fathers, and been sunk much deeper in the worship of idols, and the worship on high places, under Ahaz, who served the Baals and other idols.

Verse 7

In this battle, Zichri, an Ephraimite hero, slew three men who were closely connected with the king: Maaseiah, the king's son, i.e., not a son of Ahaz, for in the first years of his reign, in which this war arose, he cannot have had an adult son capable of bearing arms, but a royal prince, a cousin or uncle of Ahaz, as in 2Ch 18:25; 2Ch 22:11, etc. (cf. Caspari, loc. cit. S. 45ff.); Azrikam, a prince of the house, probably not of the house of God (2Ch 31:13; 2Ch 9:11), but a high official in the royal palace; and Elkanah, the second from the king, i.e., his first minister; cf. Est 10:3; 1Sa 23:17.

Verse 8

The Israelites, moreover, carried away 200,000 - women, sons, and daughters-from their brethren, and a great quantity of spoil, and brought the booty (prisoners and goods; cf. for שׁלל of men, Jdg 5:30) to Samaria. אחיהם, the brethren of the Israelites, is the name given, with emphasis, to the inhabitants of Judah, here and in 2Ch 28:11, in order to point out the cruelty of the Israelites in not scrupling to carry away captive the defenceless women and children of their brethren.
The modern critics have taken offence at the large numbers, 120,000 slain and 200,000 women and children taken prisoners, and have declared them to be exaggerations of the wonder-loving chronicler (Gesen. on Isa., De Wette, Winer, etc.). But in this they are mistaken; for if we consider the war more closely, we learn from Isa 7:6 that the allied kings purposed to annihilate the kingdom of Judah. And, moreover, the Ephraimites acted always with extreme cruelty in war (cf. 2Ki 15:16); but more especially cherished the fiercest hatred against the men of Judah, because these regarded them as having fallen away from the service of the true God (2Ch 25:6-10; 2Ch 13:4.). But in a war for the existence of the kingdom, Ahaz must certainly have called out the whole male population capable of bearing arms, which is estimated in the time of Amaziah at 300,000 men, and in that of Uzziah at 307,500 (Isa 25:5; Isa 26:13), - numbers which appear thoroughly credible, considering the size and populousness of Judah. If we suppose the army of Ahaz to have been as large, in a decisive battle fought with all possible energy nearly 120,000 men may have fallen, especially if the Ephraimites, in their exasperation, unsparingly butchered their enemies, as the narrative would seem to hint both by the word הרג in 2Ch 28:6, which signifies to murder, massacre, butcher, and by the saying of the prophet, 2Ch 28:9, “Ye massacred among them with a rage which reached to heaven.” By the character of the war, which resembled a civil or even a religious war, and by the cruelty of the Israelites, the great number of those carried captive is accounted for; for after the great defeat of the men of Judah the whole land fell into the hands of the enemy, so that they could sate their hatred and anger to their heart's content by carrying off the defenceless women and children to make them slaves. And finally, we must also consider that the numbers of the slain and of the prisoners are not founded upon exact enumeration, but upon a mere general estimate. The immense loss which was sustained in the battle was estimated on the side of Judah at 120,000 men; and the number of captive women and children was so immense, that they were, or might be, estimated at 200,000 souls, it being impossible to give an exact statement of their number. These numbers were consequently recorded in the annals of the kingdom, whence the author of the Chronicle has taken them; cf. Caspari, S. 37ff.

Verse 9

2Ch 28:9The liberation of the prisoners. - In Samaria there was a prophet of the Lord (i.e., not of the Jahve there worshipped in the calf images, but of the true God, like Hosea, who also at that time laboured in the kingdom of the ten tribes), Oded by name. He went forth to meet the army returning with the prisoners and the booty, as Azariha-ben-Oded (2Ch 15:2) once went to meet Asa; pointed out to the warriors the cruelty of their treatment of their brethren, and the guilt, calling to Heaven for vengeance, which they thereby incurred; and exhorted them to turn away the anger of God which was upon them, by sending back the prisoners. To soften the hearts of the rude warriors, and to gain them for his purpose, he tells them (2Ch 28:9), “Because the Lord God of your fathers was wroth, He gave them (the men of Judah) into your hand:” your victory over them is consequently not the fruit of your power and valour, but the work of the God of your fathers, whose wrath Judah has drawn upon itself by its defection from Him. This you should have considered, and so have had pity upon those smitten by the wrath of God; “but he have slaughtered among them with a rage which reacheth up to heaven,” i.e., not merely with a rage beyond all measure, but a rage which calls to God for vengeance; cf. Ezr 9:6.

Verse 10

2Ch 28:10 “And now the sons of Judah and Jerusalem ye purpose to subject to yourselves for bondmen and bondwomen!” יהוּדה בּני is accus., and precedes as being emphatic; i.e., your brethren, whom the wrath of God has smitten, you purpose to keep in subjection. אתּם also is emphatically placed, and then is again emphasized at the end of the sentence by the suffix in לכם: “Are there not, only concerning you, with you, sins with Jahve your God?” i.e., Have you, to regard only you, not also burdened yourselves with many sins against the Lord? The question הלא, is a lively way of expressing assurance as to a matter which is not at all doubtful.

Verse 11

After thus quickening the conscience, he calls upon them to send back the prisoners which they had carried away from among their brethren, because the anger of Jahve was upon them. Already in their pitiless butchery of their brethren they had committed a sin which cried to heaven, which challenged God's anger and His punishments; but by the carrying away of the women and children from their brethren they had filled up the measure of their sin, so that God's anger and rage must fall upon them.

Verses 12-13

This speech made a deep impression. Four of the heads of the Ephraimites, here mentioned by name, - according to 2Ch 28:12, four princes at the head of the assembled people, - came before those coming from the army (על קוּם, to come forward before one, to meet one), and said, 2Ch 28:13, “Bring not the captives hither; for in order that a sin of Jahve come upon us, do you purpose (do you intend) to add to our sins and to our guilt?” i.e., to increase our sins and our guilt by making these prisoners slaves; “for great is our guilt, and fierce wrath upon Israel.”

Verse 14

Then the armed men (החלוּץ, cf. 1Ch 12:23) who had escorted the prisoners to Samaria left the prisoners and the booty before the princes and the whole assembly.

Verse 15

2Ch 28:15 “And the men which were specified by name stood up.” בשׁמות נקּבוּ אשׁר does not signify those before mentioned (2Ch 28:12), but the men specified by name, distinguished or famous men (see on 1Ch 12:31), among whom, without doubt, those mentioned in 2Ch 28:12 are included, but not these alone; other prominent men are also meant. These received the prisoners and the booty, clothed all the naked, providing them with clothes and shoes (sandals) from the booty, gave them to eat and to drink, anointed them, and set all the feeble upon asses, and brought them to Jericho to their brethren (countrymen). The description is picturesque, portraying with satisfaction the loving pity for the miserable. מערמּים, nakedness, abstr. pro concr., the naked. לכל־כּושׁל is accus., and a nearer definition of the suffix in y|nahaluwm: they brought them, (not all, but only) all the stumbling, who could not, owing to their fatigue, make the journey on foot. Jericho, the city of palm trees, as in Jdg 3:13, in the tribe of Benjamin, belonged to the kingdom of Judah; see Jos 18:21. Arrived there, the prisoners were with their brethren.
The speech of the prophet Oded is reckoned by Gesenius, on Isaiah, S. 269, among the speeches invented by the chronicler; but very erroneously so: cf. against him, Caspari, loc cit. i. S. 49ff. The speech cannot be separated from the fact of the liberation of the prisoners carried away from Judah, which it brought about; and that is shown to be a historical fact by the names of the tribal princes of Ephraim, who, in consequence of the warning of the prophet, took his part and accomplished the sending of them back; they being names which are not elsewhere met with (2Ch 28:12). The spontaneous interference of these tribal chiefs would not be in itself impossible, but yet it is very improbable, and becomes perfectly comprehensible only by the statement that these men were roused and encouraged thereto by the word of a prophet. We must consequently regard the speech of the prophet as a fact which is as well established as that narrated in 2Ch 28:12-15. “If that which is narrated in 2Ch 28:12. be not invented, it would betray the greatest levity to hold that which is recorded in 2Ch 28:9-11 to be incredible” (Casp.). And, moreover, the speech of the prophet does not contain the thoughts and phrases current with the author of the Chronicle, but is quite suitable to the circumstances, and so fully corresponds to what we should expect to hear from a prophet on such an occasion, that there is not the slightest reason to doubt the authenticity of its contents. Finally, the whole transaction is exactly parallel to the interference of the prophet Shemaiah in 1Ki 12:22-24 (2Ch 11:1-4), who exhorted the army of Judah, fully determined upon war with the ten tribes which had just revolted from the house of David, not to make war upon their brethren the Israelites, as the revolt had been brought about by God. “That fact at the beginning of the history of the two separated kingdoms, and this at the end of it, finely correspond to each other. In the one place it is a Judaean prophet who exhorts the men of Judah, in the other an Ephraimite prophet who exhorts the Ephraimites, to show a conciliatory spirit to the related people; and in both cases they are successful. If we do not doubt the truth of the even narrated in 1Ki 12:22-24, why should that recorded in 2Ch 28:9-11 be invented?” (Casp. S. 50.)

Verse 16

2Ch 28:16The further chastisements inflicted upon King Ahaz and the kingdom of Judah. - 2Ch 28:16. At this time, when the kings Rezin and Pekah had so smitten Ahaz, the latter sent to the king of Assyria praying him for help. The time when Ahaz sought the help of the king of Assyria is neither exactly stated in 2Ki 16:7-9, nor can we conclude, as Bertheau thinks we can, from Isa. 7. that it happened soon after the invasion of Judah by the allied kings. The plural אשּׁוּר מלכי is rhetorical, like the plur. בּנין, 2Ch 28:3. For, that Ahaz applied only to one king, in the opinion of the chronicler also, we learn from 2Ch 28:20, 2Ch 28:21. By the plural the thought is expressed that Ahaz, instead of seeking the help of Jahve his God, which the prophet had promised him (Isa 7:4.), turned to the kings of the world-power, so hostile to the kingdom of God, from whom he naturally could obtain no real help. Even here the thought which is expressed only in 2Ch 28:20, 2Ch 28:21, is present to the mind of the author of the Chronicle. For before he narrates the issue of the help thus sought from the Assyrian world-power in 2Ch 28:17-19, he ranges all the other afflictions which Judah suffered by its enemies, viz., the devastating inroads of the Edomites and Philistines, in a series of circumstantial clauses, as they preceded in time the oppression of Tiglath-pileser.

Verse 17

2Ch 28:17 2Ch 28:17 is to be translated, “And besides, the Edomites had come, and had inflicted a defeat upon Judah, and carried away captives.” עוד, yet besides, praeterea, as in Gen 43:6; Isa 1:5. The Edomites had been made subject to the kingdom of Judah only by Amaziah and Uzziah (2Ch 25:11., 2Ch 26:2); but freed by Rezin from this (cf. 2Ki 16:6), they immediately seized the opportunity to make an inroad upon Judah, and take vengeance on the inhabitants.

Verse 18

And the Philistines whom Uzziah had subdued (2Ch 26:6) made use of the pressure of the Syrians and Ephraimites upon Judah, not only to shake off the yoke imposed upon them, but also to fall plundering upon the cities of the lowland and the south of Judah, and to extend their territory by the capture of several cities of Judah. They took Beth-shemesh, the present Ain Shems; and Ajalon, the present village Jâlo (see on 1Ch 6:44 and 1Ch 6:54); Gederoth in the lowland (Jos 15:41), not yet discovered, for there are not sufficient grounds for identifying it with Gedera (Jos 15:36), which v. de Velde has pointed out south-eastward from Jabneh (see on 1Ch 12:4); Shocho, the present Shuweike, which Rehoboam had fortified (2Ch 11:7); Timnah, on the frontier of the tribal domain of Judah, the present Tibneh, three-quarters of an hour to the west of Ain Shems (see on Jos 15:10); and Gimzo, now Jimsû, a large village about two miles south-east of Lydda (Lud) on the way to Jerusalem (Rob. sub voce). The three last-named cities, with their daughters, i.e., the small villages dependent upon them.

Verses 19-21

Judah suffered this defeat, because God humbled them on account of Ahaz. Ahaz is called king of Israel, not because he walked in the ways of the kings of the kingdom of the ten tribes (2Ch 28:2), but ironically, because his government was the bitterest satire upon the name of the king of Israel, i.e., of the people of God (Casp.); so that Israel here, and in 2Ch 28:27, as in 2Ch 21:2; 2Ch 12:6, is used with reference to the pregnant signification of the word. הפריע כּי, for (Ahaz) had acted wantonly in Judah; not: made Judah wanton, for הפריע is construed with b, not with accus. obj., as in Exo 5:4.
After this episode the narrator comes back upon the help which Ahaz sought of the Assyrians. The Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser (on the name, see on 1Ch 5:6) did indeed come, but עליו, against him (Ahaz), and oppressed him, but strengthened him not. חזקו ולא לו ויּצר Thenius and Bertheau translate: he oppressed him, that is, besieged him, yet did not overcome him; adducing in support of this, that חזק c. accus. cannot be shown to occur in the signification to strengthen one, and according to Jer 20:7; 1Ki 16:22, is to be translated, to overcome. But this translation does not at all suit the reason given in the following clause: “for Ahaz had plundered the house of Jahve, ... and given it to the king of Asshur; but it did not result in help to him.” The sending away of the temple and palace treasures to the Assyrian king, to obtain his help, cannot possibly be stated as the reason why Tiglath-pileser besieged Ahaz, but did not overcome him, but only as a reason why he did not give Ahaz the expected help, and so did not strengthen him. חזקו ולא corresponds to the לו לעזרה ולא, 2Ch 28:21, and both clauses refer back to לו לעזר, 2Ch 28:16. That which Ahaz wished to buy from Tiglath-pileser, by sending him the treasures of the palace and the temple, - namely, help against his enemies, - he did not thereby obtain, but the opposite, viz., that Tiglath-pileser came against him and oppressed him. When, on the contrary, Thenius takes the matter thus, that the subjection of Ahaz under Tiglath-pileser was indeed prevented by the treasures given, but the support desired was not purchased by them, he has ungrammatically taken חזק as imperfect, and violently torn away the לו לעזרה לו  ולא from what precedes. If we connect these words, as the adversative ולא requires, with וגו ויּתּן, then the expression, “Ahaz gave the Assyrian king the treasures of the temple, ... but it did not result in help to him,” gives no support to the idea that Tiglath-pileser besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. The context therefore necessarily demands that חזק should have the active signification, to strengthen, notwithstanding that חזק in Kal is mainly used as intransitive. Moreover, לו ויּצר also does not denote he besieged, as אליו ויּצר or עליו,   2Sa 20:15; 1Sa 23:8; but only, he oppressed him, and cannot here be translated otherwise than the לו חצר, 2Ch 28:22, which corresponds to it, where Bertheau also has decided in favour of the signification oppress. It is not stated wherein the oppression consisted; but without doubt it was that Tiglath-pileser, after he had both slain Rezin and conquered his kingdom, and also taken away many cities in Galilee and the land of Naphtali from Pekah, carrying away the inhabitants to Assyria (2Ki 16:9 and 2Ki 15:29), advanced against Ahaz himself, to make him a tributary. The verbs חלק and ויּתּן (2Ch 28:21) are pluperfects: “for Ahaz had plundered,” etc. Not when Tiglath-pileser oppressed him, but when he besought help of that king, Ahaz had sent him the treasures of the temple and the palace as שׁחד,   2Ki 16:7-8. חלק denotes to plunder, like חלק, a share of booty, Num 31:36, and booty, Job 17:5. The selection of this word for the taking away of the treasures of silver and gold out of the temple and palace arises from the impassioned nature of the language. The taking away of these treasures was, in fact, a plundering of the temple and of the palace. Had Ahaz trusted in the Lord his God, he would not have required to lay violent hands on these treasures. והשּׂרים is added to המּלך בּית, to signify that Ahaz laid hands upon the precious things belonging to the high officials who dwelt in the palace, and delivered them over to the Assyrian king (Berth.).
Although the author of the Chronicle makes the further remark, that the giving of these treasures over did not result in help to Ahaz, yet it cannot be at all doubtful that he had the fact recorded in 2Ki 16:7-9 before his eyes, and says nothing inconsistent with that account. According to 2Ki 16:9, Tiglath-pileser, in consequence of the present sent him, took the field, conquered and destroyed the kingdom of Rezin, and also took possession of the northern part of the kingdom of Israel, as is narrated in 2Ki 15:29. The author of the Chronicle has not mentioned these events, because Ahaz was not thereby really helped. Although the kings Rezin and Pekah were compelled to abandon their plan of capturing Jerusalem and subduing the kingdom of Judah, by the inroad of the Assyrians into their land, yet this help was to be regarded as nothing, seeing that Tiglath-pileser not only retained the conquered territories and cities for himself, but also undertook the whole campaign, not to strengthen Ahaz, but for the extension of his own (the Assyrian) power, and so made use of it, and, as we are told in 2Ch 28:20 of the Chronicle, oppressed Ahaz. This oppression is, it is true, not expressly mentioned in 2 Kings 16, but is hinted in 2Ki 16:18, and placed beyond doubt by 2Ki 18:7, 2Ki 18:14, 2Ki 18:20; cf. Isa 36:5. In 2Ki 16:18 it is recorded that Ahaz removed the covered sabbath portico which had been built to the house of God, and the external entrance of the king into the house of the Lord, because of (מפּני) the king of Assyria. Manifestly Ahaz feared, as J. D. Mich. has already rightly concluded from this, that the king of Assyria, whom he had summoned to his assistance, might at some time desire to take possession of the city, and that in such a case this covered sabbath porch and an external entrance into the temple might be of use to him in the siege. This note, therefore, notwithstanding its obscurity, yet gives sufficiently clear testimony in favour of the statement in the Chronicle, that the king of Assyria, who had been called upon by Ahaz for help, oppressed him, upon which doubt has been cast by Gesen. Isa. i. S. 269, etc. Tiglath-pileser must have in some way shown a desire to possess Jerusalem, and Ahaz have consequently feared that he might wish to take it by force. But from 2Ki 18:7, 2Ki 18:14, 2Ki 18:20, cf. Isa 36:5, it is quite certain Ahaz had become tributary to the Assyrian king, and the kingdom dependent upon the Assyrians. It is true, indeed, that in these passages, strictly interpreted, this subjection of Judah is only said to exist immediately before the invasion of Sennacherib; but since Assyria made no war upon Judah between the campaign of Tiglath-pileser against Damascus and Samaria and Sennacherib's attack, the subjection of Judah to Assyria, which Hezekiah brought to an end, can only have dated from the time of Ahaz, and can only have commenced when Ahaz had called in Tiglath-pileser to aid him against his enemies. Certainly the exact means by which Tiglath-pileser compelled Ahaz to submit and to pay tribute cannot be recognised under, and ascertained from, the rhetorical mode of expression: Tiglath-pileser came against him, and oppressed him. Neither עליו ויּבא nor לו ויּצר require us to suppose that Tiglath-pileser advanced against Jerusalem with an army, although it is not impossible that Tiglath-pileser, after having conquered the Israelite cities in Galilee and the land of Naphtali, and carried away their inhabitants to Assyria (2Ki 15:29), may have made a further advance, and demanded of Ahaz tribute and submission, ordering a detachment of his troops to march into Judah to enforce his demand. But the words quoted do not necessarily mean more than that Tiglath made the demand on Ahaz for tribute from Galilee, with the threat that, if he should refuse it, he would march into and conquer Judah; and that Ahaz, feeling himself unable to cope successfully with so powerful a king, promised to pay the tribute without going to war. Even in this last case the author of the Chronicle might say that the king who had been summoned by Ahaz to his assistance came against him and oppressed him, and helped him not. Cf. also the elaborate defence of the account in the Chronicle, in Caspari, S. 56ff.

Verse 22

2Ch 28:22Increase of Ahaz' transgressions against the Lord. - 2Ch 28:22. After this proof that Ahaz only brought greater oppression upon himself by seeking help from the king of Assyria (2Ch 28:16-21), there follows (2Ch 28:22.) an account of how he, in his trouble, continued to sin more and more against God the Lord, and hardened himself more and more in idolatry. לו הצר וּבעת corresponds to the ההיא בּעת 2Ch 28:16. “At the time when they oppressed him, he trespassed yet more against the Lord, he King Ahaz.” In the last words the rhetorical emphasizing of the subject comes clearly out. The sentence contains a general estimation of the attitude of the godless king under the divine chastisement, which is then illustrated by facts (2Ch 28:23-25).

Verse 23

He sacrificed to the gods of Damascus, which smote him, saying, i.e., thinking, The gods of the kings of Aram which helped them, to them will I sacrifice, and they will help me. כּי serves to introduce the saying, and both הם and להם are rhetorical. Berth. incorrectly translates the participle המּכּים by the pluperfect: who had smitten him. It was not after the Syrians had smitten him that Ahaz sought to gain by sacrifice the help of their gods, but while the Syrians were inflicting defeats upon him; not after the conclusion of the Syrian war, but during its course. The ungrammatical translation of the participle by the pluperfect arises from the view that the contents of our verse, the statement that Ahaz sacrificed to the Syrian gods, is an unhistorical misinterpretation of the statement in 2Ki 16:10., about the altar which Ahaz saw when he went to meet the Assyrian king in Damascus, and a copy of which he caused to be made in Jerusalem, and set up in the temple court, in the place of the copper altar of burnt-offering. But we have already rejected that view as unfounded, in the exposition of 2Ki 16:10. Since Ahaz had cast and erected statues to the Baals, and even sacrificed his son to Moloch, he naturally would not scruple to sacrifice to the Assyrian gods to secure their help. But they (these gods) brought ruin to him and to all Israel. לכל־ישׂ is in the accusative, and co-ordinate with the suffix in הכשׁילו.

Verses 24-25

Not content with thus worshipping strange gods, Ahaz laid violent hands upon the temple vessels and suppressed the temple worship. He collected all the vessels of the house of God together, and broke them in pieces. These words also are rhetorical, so that neither the יאסף, which depicts the matter vividly, nor the כּל, is to be pressed. The קצּץ of the vessels consisted, according to 2Ki 16:17, in this, that he mutilated the artistically wrought vessels of the court, and cut out the panels from the bases, and took away the lavers from them, and took down the brazen sea from the oxen on which it stood, and set it upon a pavement of stones. “And he closed the doors of the house of Jahve,” in order to put an end to the Jahve-worship in the temple, which he regarded as superfluous, since he had erected altars at the corners of all the streets in Jerusalem, and in all the cities of Judah. The statement as to the closing of the temple doors, to which reference is made in 2Ch 29:3, 2Ch 29:7, is said by Berth. not to reset upon good historical recollection, because the book of Kings not only does not say anything of it, but also clearly gives us to understand that Ahaz allowed the Jahve-worship to continue, 2Ki 16:15. That the book of Kings (2Ch 2:16) makes no mention of this circumstance does not prove much, it being an argumentum e silentio; for the book of Kings is not a complete history, it contains only a short excerpt from the history of the kings; while the intimation given us in 2Ki 16:15. as to the continuation of the worship of Jahve, may without difficulty be reconciled with the closing of the temple doors. The יהוה בּית דּלתות are not the gates of the court of the temple, but, according to the clear explanation of the Chronicle, 2Ch 29:7, the doors of the porch, which in 2Ch 29:3 are also called doors of the house of Jahve; the “house of Jahve” signifying here not the whole group of temple buildings, but, in the narrower sense of the words, denoting only the main body of the temple (the Holy Place and the Most Holy, wherein Jahve was enthroned). By the closing of the doors of the porch the worship of Jahve in the Holy Place and the Most Holy was indeed suspended, but the worship at the altar in the court was not thereby necessarily interfered with: it might still continue. Now it is the worship at the altar of burnt-offering alone of which it is said in 2Ki 16:15 that Ahaz allowed it to continue to this extent, that he ordered the priest Urijah to offer all the burnt-offerings and sacrifices, meat-offerings and drink-offerings, which were offered morning and evening by both king and people, not upon the copper sacrificial altar (Solomon's), but on the altar built after the pattern of that which he had seen at Damascus. The cessation of worship at this altar is also left unmentioned by the Chronicle, and in 2Ch 29:7. Hezekiah, when he again opened the doors of the house of Jahve, only says to the priests and Levites, “Our fathers have forsaken Jahve, and turned their backs on His sanctuary; yea, have shut the doors of the porch, put out the lamps, and have not burnt incense nor offered burnt-offerings in the Holy Place unto the God of Israel.” Sacrificing upon an altar built after a heathen model was not sacrificing to the God of Israel. There is therefore no ground to doubt the historical truth of the statement in our verse. The description of the idolatrous conduct of Ahaz concludes with the remark, 2Ch 28:25, that Ahaz thereby provoked Jahve, the God of his fathers, to anger.

Verses 26-27

2Ch 28:26-27The end of his reign. - 2Ch 28:27. Ahaz indeed both died and was buried in the city, in Jerusalem (as 2Ki 16:20), but was not laid in the graves of the kings, because he had not ruled like a king of the people of God, the true Israel. Since the name Israel is used in a pregnant sense, as in 2Ch 28:19, the terms in which the place where he died is designated, “in the city, in Jerusalem,” would seem to have been purposely selected to intimate that Ahaz, because he had not walked during life like his ancestor David, was not buried along with David when he died. The Reign of Hezekiah - 2 Chronicles 29-32
Hezekiah, the pious son of the godless Ahaz, recognised that it was to be the business of his reign to bring the kingdom out of the utterly ruinous condition into which Ahaz had brought it by his idolatry and his heathen policy, and to elevate the state again, both in respect to religion and morals, and also in political affairs. He consequently endeavoured, in the first place, to do away with the idolatry, and to restore the Jahve-worship according to the law, and then to throw off the yoke of subjection to the Assyrian. These two undertakings, on the success of which God bestowed His blessing, form the contents of the history of his reign both in the books of Kings and in the Chronicle; but they are differently treated by the authors of these books. In the book of Kings, the extirpation of idolatry, and Hezekiah's faithfulness in cleaving to the Lord his God, are very briefly recorded (2Ki 17:3-7); while the throwing off of the Assyrian yoke, which brought on Sennacherib's invasion, and ended with the destruction of the Assyrian army before Jerusalem, and the further results of that memorable event (the sickness and recovery of Hezekiah, the arrival of a Babylonian embassy in Jerusalem, and Hezekiah's reception of them), are very fully narrated in 2 Kings 18:8-20:19. The author of the Chronicle, on the contrary, enlarges upon Hezekiah's reform of the cultus, the purification of the temple from all idolatrous abominations, the restoration of the Jahve-worship, and a solemn celebration of the passover, to which the king invited not only his own subjects, but also the remainder of the ten tribes (2 Chron 29-31); and gives merely a brief summary of the chief points in Sennacherib's invasion, and the events connected with it (2 Chron 32).

Chap. 29

Verses 1-2

2Ch 29:1-2The beginning of his reign (2Ch 29:1, 2Ch 29:2). Purification and consecration of the temple (vv. 3-36). - 2Ch 29:1 and 2Ch 29:2. Age of Hezekiah, duration and spirit of his reign, as in 2Ki 18:1-3. With 2Ch 29:3 the account of the restoration of the Jahve-worship begins. In the first year of his reign, in the first month, Hezekiah caused the temple doors to be opened, and the priests and Levites to assemble, in order that he might rouse them by an energetic address to purify the house of God from all the uncleannesses of idolatry (2Ch 29:3-11). They, vigorously commencing the work, completed the purification of the temple with its courts and vessels in sixteen days, and reported to the king what had been done (2Ch 29:12-19); and then the king and the chiefs of the city offered a great sacrifice to consecrate the purified sanctuary, upon which followed burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and thankofferings of the whole assembly (vv. 20-36).

Verse 3

2Ch 29:3The purification of the temple by the priests and Levites. - 2Ch 29:3. In the first year of his reign, in the first month, he caused the doors of the house of Jahve to be opened and repaired (הזּק as in 2Ch 24:12, where it alternates with הדּשׁ). Cf. herewith the remark in 2Ki 18:16, that Hezekiah caused the doors of the היכל to be covered with leaf-gold. The date, in the first month, in the first year of his reign, is variously interpreted. As the Levites, according to 2Ch 29:17, began the purification on the first day of the first month, in eight days had reached the porch, and on the sixteenth day of the first month had completed the work, while the king had, according to 2Ch 29:4, before called upon the priests and Levites to sanctify themselves for the work, and those summoned then assembled their brethren for this purpose, and after they had consecrated themselves, began the cleansing (2Ch 29:15), it would seem as if the summons of the king and the calling together of the remaining Levites had occurred before the first day of the first month, when they began the purification of the house of God. On that account Caspari (Beiträge z. Einleit. in d. B. Jesaiah, S. 111) thinks that the first month (2Ch 29:3) is not the first month of the year (Nisan), but the first month of the reign of Hezekiah, who probably became king shortly before Nisan, towards the end of the year. But it is not at all likely that הראשׁון החדר is used in a different sense in 2Ch 29:3 from that in which it is used in 2Ch 29:17. We therefore hold, with Berth. and others, the first month, both in 2Ch 29:3 and in 2Ch 29:17, to be the first month of the ecclesiastical year Nisan, without, however, accepting the supposition of Gumpach and Bertheau that the years of Hezekiah's reign began with the first of Tishri, for for that way of reckoning there are no certain data in the historical books of the Old Testament. The statement, “in the first year of his reign, in the first month” (not in the first year, in the first month of his reign), is sufficiently explained if Hezekiah ascended the throne in one of the last months of the calendar year, which began with Nisan. In that case, on the first of Nisan of the new year, so few months, or perhaps only weeks, would have elapsed since his accession, that what he did in Nisan could not rightly have been dated otherwise than “in the first year of his reign.” The other difficulty, that the purification of the temple began on the first day of the first month (2Ch 29:7), while the preparations for it which preceded were yet, according to 2Ch 29:3, made also in the first month, is removed if we take 2Ch 29:3 to be a comprehensive summary of what is described in the following verses, and regard the connection between 2Ch 29:3 and 2Ch 29:4. as only logical, not chronological, the ו consec. (ויּבא) expressing, not succession in time, but connection in thought. The opening of the doors of the house of God, and the repairing of them (2Ch 29:3), did not precede in time the summons to the priests (2Ch 29:4), but is placed at the commencement of the account of the reopening and restoration of the temple as a contrast to the closing and devastation of the sanctuary by Ahaz. Hezekiah commenced this work in the first year of his reign, in the first month of the calendar year, and accomplished it as is described in 2Ch 29:4-17. If we take 2Ch 29:3 as a statement of the contents of the succeeding section, - as are e.g., (1Ki 6:14; 1Ki 7:1) the statements, “he built the house, and completed it,” where in both passages the completion of the building is described only in the succeeding verses, - we need not confine the preparations spoken of in 2Ch 29:4-15 to the first day of the first month, but may quite well suppose that these preparations preceded the first day of the month, and that only the accomplishment of that which had been resolved upon and commanded by the king fell in the first month, as is more accurately stated in 2Ch 29:17.

Verses 4-6

Hezekiah gathered the priests and Levites together “into the open space of the east,” i.e., in the eastern open space before the temple, not “in the inner court” (Berth.), - see on Ezr 10:9 -and called upon them (2Ch 29:5) to sanctify themselves, and then to sanctify the house of the Lord. To purify the temple they must first sanctify themselves (cf. 2Ch 29:15), in order to proceed to the work of sanctifying the house of God in a state of Levitical purity. The work was to remove all that was unclean from the sanctuary. הנּדּה is Levitical uncleanness, for which in 2Ch 29:16 we have הטּמאה; here the abominations of idolatry. The king gave the reason of his summons in a reference to the devastation which Ahaz and his contemporaries had wrought in the house of God (2Ch 29:6, 2Ch 29:7), and to the wrath of God which had on that account come upon them (2Ch 29:8, 2Ch 29:9). “Our fathers” (2Ch 29:6), that is, Ahaz and his contemporaries, for only these had been guilty of displeasing God in the ways mentioned in 2Ch 29:6 and 2Ch 29:7, “have turned away their face from the dwelling of Jahve, and turned their back (upon it).” These words are a symbolical expression for: they have ceased to worship Jahve in His temple, and exchanged it for idolatry.

Verse 7

Even (גּם) the doors of the porch have they shut, and caused the service in the sanctuary, the lighting of the lamps, and the sacrifices of incense, to cease; see on 2Ch 28:24. The words, “and they brought not burnt-offerings in the sanctuary to the God of Israel,” do not imply the complete cessation of the legal sacrificial worship, but only that no burnt-offerings were brought to the God of Israel. Sacrifices offered upon the altar of burnt-offering built after a heathen pattern by Ahaz were not, in the eyes of the author of the Chronicle, sacrifices which were offered to the God of Israel; and it is also possible that even this sacrificial worship may have more and more decayed. קדשׁ, 2Ch 29:7, is the whole sanctuary, with the court of the priests.

Verses 8-9

Wherefore the wrath of the Lord came upon Judah and Jerusalem. Cf. for the expression, 2Ch 24:18; 2Ch 32:25; on 2Ch 29:8, cf. Deu 28:25, Deu 28:37; Jer 24:9; Jer 25:9, etc. “As ye see with your eyes.” The shameful defeats which Judah had sustained under Ahaz from the Syrians, Ephraimites, Philistines, and Edomites, and the oppression by the Syrian king (2Ch 28:5., 2Ch 28:17-21), are here referred to, as we learn from 2Ch 29:9.

Verses 10-11

To turn away this anger of God, Hezekiah wishes to make a covenant with the Lord, i.e., to renew the covenant with Jahve by restoring His worship (לבבי עם as in 2Ch 6:7; 2Ch 9:1; 1Ch 28:2, etc.), and therefore calls upon the Levites not to neglect the performance of their duty. בּני he calls the Levites, addressing them in kindly language; cf. Pro 1:8, etc. תּשּׁלוּ in Niph. occurs only here, and denotes to avoid a thing from carelessness or laziness, - from שׁלה, to draw forth; Job 27:8. On 2Ch 29:11, cf. Deu 10:8; 1Ch 23:13.

Verses 12-14

This address was heard with gladness. The Levites present assembled their brethren, and set to work, after they had all sanctified themselves, to purify the temple. In 2Ch 29:12-14 fourteen names are mentioned as those of the audience, viz.: two Levites of each of the great families of Kohath, Merari, and Gershon; two of the family of Elizaphan, i.e., Elzaphan the son of Uzziel, the son of Kohath, Exo 6:18, who in the time of Moses was prince of the family of Kohath, Num 3:30; and then two Levites of the descendants of Asaph (of the family of Gershon); two of Heman's descendants (of the family of Kohath); and two of Jeduthun's (of the family of Merari): see on 1Ch 6:18-32. Of these names, Mahath, Eden, and Jehiel occur again in 2Ch 31:13-15; several others, Joah ben Zimmah and Kish ben Abdi, have occurred already in the genealogy, 1Ch 6:5. and 2Ch 29:29, for in the various families the same name often repeats itself.

Verse 15

These fourteen heads of the various families and branches of Levi assembled their brethren (the other Levites who dwelt in Jerusalem); then they all sanctified themselves, and went forward, according to the command of the king, with the work of cleansing the temple. יהוה בּדברי belongs to הם כּמצות, according to the command of the king, which was founded upon the words of Jahve, i.e., upon the commands of Moses' law; cf. 2Ch 30:12.

Verse 16

The priests went into the inner part of the house of the Lord (into the holy place, probably also into the most holy place) to cleanse it, and removed all the uncleanness which was there into the court, whence the Levites carried it out into the valley of the brook Kidron (חוּצה, out of the precincts of the temple). The Levites were forbidden by the law to enter the holy place, and this command was strictly observed. Of what nature the uncleannesses were which the priests found in the holy place (היכל) cannot be accurately ascertained. Owing to the prevalence of idolatry under Ahaz, vessels, e.g., sacrificial bowls, which were used in the worship, may have come into the holy place; and besides, all vessels of the holy place would require to be cleaned, and their filth removed. The closing of the temple doors (2Ch 28:24) occurred only in the last year of Ahaz, while idolatry had been practised from the beginning of his reign. On the Kidron, see on 2Ki 23:4.

Verse 17

The duration of the purification. On the first day of the first month they commenced with the purification of the courts; on the eighth day of the same month they came to the porch of Jahve, and with it began the purification of the temple building. This lasted eight days more, so that the work was finished on the sixteenth day of the first month.

Verses 18-19

At the end of this business they made their report to the king. “All the vessels which King Ahaz had thrown away, i.e., made worthy of rejection,” are the copper altar of burnt-offering, the brazen sea, and the lavers upon the bases (2Ki 16:14, 2Ki 16:17). הכנּוּ, we have prepared, is a shorter form of הכיונוּ; cf. Gesen. Gramm. §72. 5, and J. Olshausen, hebr. Grammat. S. 565. The altar of Jahve is the altar of burnt-offering; cf. 2Ch 29:21.

Verses 20-24

2Ch 29:20-24The re-dedication of the temple by offering sacrifices. - 2Ch 29:20. Probably on the very next morning Hezekiah went with the princes (heads) of the city into the house of the Lord, and brought seven bullocks, seven rams, and seven lambs for a burnt-offering, and seven he-goats for a sin-offering, “for the kingdom, for the sanctuary, and for Judah,” i.e., as expiation for and consecration of the kingdom, sanctuary, and people. These sacrifices were offered by the priests according to the prescription of the law of Moses, 2Ch 29:22-24. The burnt-offerings are first named, as in the sacrificial Torah in Lev 1-6, although the offering of the sin-offering preceded that of the burnt-offering. The laying on of hands, too, is mentioned only with the sin-offering, 2Ch 29:23, although according to Lev 1:4 the same ceremony was gone through with the burnt-offerings; but that is not because a confession of sin was probably made during the laying on of hands, as Bertheau conjectures, adducing Lev 16:21, for from that passage no such conclusion can be drawn. The ceremony is mentioned only in the one case to emphasize the fact that the king and the assembly (the latter, of course, by their representatives) laid their hands upon the sacrificial beasts, because the atonement was, according to the king's words, to be for all Israel. “All Israel” are probably not only all the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah, but Israelites in general (the twelve tribes), for whom the temple in Jerusalem was the only lawful sanctuary. דּם את חטּא signifies to bring the blood to the altar for an atonement, in the manner prescribed in Lev 4:30, Lev 4:34.

Verse 25

Hezekiah, moreover, restored again the music with which the Levites were wont to accompany the sacrificial act, and which David, with the prophets Gad and Nathan, had arranged. The ו consec. with ויּעמד expresses the secution of thought, and 2Ch 29:25 corresponds to the 2Ch 29:21. First, the beasts to be sacrificed were prepared for the sacrifice, and then to the Levites was committed the performance of instrumental and vocal music during the sacrificial act. In reference to the musical instruments, see on 1Ch 15:16. The Levites were appointed to sing, “according to the command of David;” but this command was בּיד, by interposition of Jahve, viz., given by His prophets. David had consequently made this arrangement at the divine suggestion, coming to him through the prophets. With המּלך הזה cf. 1Ch 21:9. נביאיו בּיד is in explanatory apposition to יהוה בּיד, and נביאיו is not to be referred to David, although David is called in 2Ch 8:14 “man of God.”

Verses 26-27

2Ch 29:26-27 דויד כּלי are the musical instruments the use of which David introduced into the public worship; see 1Ch 23:5. - The first clause, 2Ch 29:27, “And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt-offering upon the altar,” is repeated from 2Ch 29:21 to form a connection for what follows: “At the time when the sacrificial act began, the song of Jahve commenced,” i.e., the praising of Jahve by song and instrumental music (יהוה שׁיר = ליהוה שׁיר,   1Ch 25:7), and (the blowing) of trumpets, “and that under the leading (ידי על) of the instruments of David.” This is to be understood as denoting that the blowing of the trumpets regulated itself by the playing of the stringed instruments-suited itself to the song and the music of the stringed instruments.

Verse 28

During the offering of the burnt-offering, until it was ended, the whole congregation stood worshipping; and the song of the Levites, accompanied by the music of the stringed instruments and the trumpet-blowing of the priests, continued. משׁורר השּׁיר, “the song was singing,” stands for “the body of singers sang;” and the trumpets also stand for the trumpeters.

Verse 29

At the conclusion of the sacrificial act (להעלות is a contraction for העולה להעלות, 2Ch 29:27) the king and all who were present knelt and worshipped.

Verse 30

The king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words (psalms) of David and of Asaph; and they sang praise with joy, and bowed themselves and worshipped. This verse does not mean that the Levites began to sing psalms at the king's command only after the sacrificial act and the instrumental music (2Ch 29:27.) had been finished, but it forms a comprehensive conclusion of the description of the sacrificial solemnities. The author of the Chronicle considered it necessary to make express mention of the praising of God in psalms, already implicite involved in the משׁורר השּׁיר, 2Ch 29:28, and to remark that the Levites also, at the conclusion of the song of praise, knelt and worshipped. Asaph is here called חזה, as Jeduthun (Ethan) is in 2Ch 35:15, and Heman, 1Ch 25:5.

Verse 31

2Ch 29:31The sacrifice of thank-offerings and praise-offerings and voluntary burnt-offering. - Hezekiah introduces this, the concluding act of this religious festival, with the words, “Now have ye filled your hand to the Lord,” i.e., you have again consecrated yourselves to the service of the Lord (cf. Exo 32:29 and the commentary on Lev 7:37.); “come near, and bring sacrifices and thank-offerings into the house of the Lord.” The words “Now have ye filled” are regarded by the commentators (Clericus, Ramb., Bertheau, etc.) as addressed to the priests; while the following וגו גּשׁוּ are supposed to be directed to the congregation, and Clericus and Ramb. consequently supply before גּשׁוּ, vos vero, Israelitae. The summons והביאוּ גּשׁוּ can certainly only be addressed to the congregation, as is shown by the words הקּהל ויּביאוּ, and the congregation brought, which correspond to the summons. But the supplying of vos vero before גּשׁוּ is quite arbitrary. If in גּשׁוּ other persons are addressed than those to whom the king formerly said, “Now have ye filled your hands,” the change in the persons addressed would have been intimated by mention of the person, or at least by ואתּם, “but ye.” As the two clauses at present stand, they must be spoken to the same persons, viz., the whole assembled congregation, including the priests and Levites. We must therefore suppose that the phrase לי יד מלּא, which in its narrower sense denotes only the consecration of the priests for service at the altar (see on Lev 7:37), is here used in a wider sense, and transferred to the whole congregation. They, by their participation in the consecratory offerings, by laying on of hands and worship during the sacrificial act, had consecrated themselves anew to the service of the Lord as their God, and had anew made a covenant with the Lord (2Ch 29:10); so that only the sacrificial meal was wanting to the completion of this celebration of the covenant, and for this the offering of sacrifices was requisite. The collocation ותודות זבהים is strange. זבהים are שׁלמים זבהים, sacrifices of peace-offering, also called briefly שׁלמים. Of these, in the law, three species - praise-offerings (תּודות), vowed offerings, and voluntary offerings - are distinguished (Lev 7:11, Lev 7:16). תּודות therefore denotes a species of the sacrifices or peace-offerings, the praise or thank-offerings in the stricter sense; and ותודות must be taken as explicative: sacrifices, and that (or namely) praise-offerings. לב וכל־נדיב, and every one who was heartily willing, (brought) burnt-offerings; i.e., all who felt inwardly impelled to do so, brought of their own accord burnt-offerings.

Verse 32

The number of the burnt-offerings brought spontaneously by the congregation was very large: 70 bullocks, 100 rams, and 200 lambs.

Verses 33-34

2Ch 29:33-34 והקּדשׁים, and the consecrated, i.e., the beasts brought as thank-offering (cf. 2Ch 35:13; Neh 10:34), were 600 bullocks and 3000 small cattle (sheep and goats). - In 2Ch 29:34-36 the account closes with some remarks upon these sacrifices and the festal solemnity. 2Ch 29:34. But there were too few priests, and they were not able (so that they were not able) to flay all the burnt-offerings; and their brethren the Levites helped them till the work was ended (i.e., the flaying), and until the priests had sanctified themselves. In the case of private burnt-offerings the flaying of the beast was the business of the sacrificer (Lev 1:6); while in the case of those offered on solemn occasions in the name of the congregation it was the priest's duty, and in it, as the work was not of a specifically priestly character, the Levites might assist. The burnt-offerings which are spoken of in 2Ch 29:34 are not merely those voluntarily offered (2Ch 29:34), but also the consecratory burnt-offerings (2Ch 29:22, 2Ch 29:27). Only 2Ch 29:35 refers to the voluntary offerings alone. “For the Levites had been more upright to sanctify themselves than the priests.” לב ישׁרי, rectiores animo, had endeavoured more honestly. Perhaps the priests had taken more part in the idolatrous worship of Ahaz than the Levites, which would be quite accounted for, as Kueper, das Priesterth. des A. Bundes (1870), S. 216, remarks, by their relation to the court of the king, and their dependence upon it. They consequently showed themselves more slack even in the purification than the Levites, who forte etiam idololatricis sacris minus contaminati et impediti erant (Ramb.).

Verse 35

2Ch 29:35 2Ch 29:35 gives yet another reason why the Levites had to help the priests: “And also the burnt-offerings were in abundance, with the fat of the peace-offerings, and the drink-offerings for every burnt-offering.” The priests could not accomplish the flaying for this reason also, that they had, besides, to see to the proper altar service (sprinkling of the blood, and burning of the sacrifices upon the altar), which taxed their strength, since, besides the consecratory burnt-offerings, there were the voluntary burnt-offerings (2Ch 29:31), which were offered along with the thank-offerings and the drink-offerings, which belonged to the burnt-offerings of Num 15:1-15. Thus the service of the house of Jahve was arranged. עבודה is not the purification and dedication of the temple (Berth.), but only the sacrificial service, or rather all that concerned the regular temple worship, which had decayed under Ahaz, and had at length wholly ceased.

Verse 36

Hezekiah and the whole people rejoiced because of it. ההכין על, over that which God had prepared for the people (by the purification of the temple and the restoration of the Jahve worship), not “because God had made the people ready” (Ramb., Berth.). The article with הכין represents the relative pronoun אשׁר; see on 1Ch 26:28. The joy was heightened by the fact that the thing was done suddenly.

Chap. 30

Verse 1

2Ch 30:1The celebration of the passover. - 2Ch 30:1-12. The preparations for this celebration. - 2Ch 30:1. Hezekiah invited all Israel and Judah to it; “and he also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasseh,” the two chief tribes of the northern kingdom, which here, as is manifest from 2Ch 30:5, 2Ch 30:10, are named instar omnium. But the whole sentence serves only to elucidate כּל־שׂראל על ישׁלה. To all Israel (of the ten tribes) he sent the invitation, and this he did by letters. The verse contains a general statement as to the matter, which is further described in what follows.

Verses 2-4

The king consulted with his princes and the whole assembly in Jerusalem, i.e., with the community of the capital assembled in their representatives for this purpose, as to keeping the passover in the second month. This was (Num 9:6-13) allowed to those who, by uncleanness or by absence on a distant journey, were prevented from holding the feast at the lawful time, the 14th of the first month. Both these reasons existed in this case (2Ch 30:3): the priests had not sufficiently sanctified themselves, and the people had not assembled in Jerusalem, sc. at the legal time in the first month. למדּי, contracted from מה־דּי, that which is sufficient, is usually interpreted, “not in sufficient number” (Rashi, Vulg., Berth., etc.); but the reference of the word to the number cannot be defended. למדּי denotes only ad sufficientiam, and means not merely that the priests had not sanctified themselves in such numbers as were required for the slaughtering and offering of the paschal lambs, but that the priesthood in general was not yet sufficiently consecrated, many priests not having at that time wholly renounced idolatry and consecrated themselves anew. Nor does the passage signify, as Bertheau says it does, “that although the purification of the temple was completed only on the sixteenth day of the first month (2Ch 29:17), the passover would yet have been celebrated in the first month, though perhaps not on the legal fourteenth day, had not a further postponement become necessary for the reasons here given;” for there is nothing said in the text of a “further postponement.” That is just as arbitrarily dragged into the narrative as the idea that Hezekiah ever intended to hold the passover on another day than the legal fourteenth day of the month, which is destitute of all support, and even of probability. The postponement of the passover until the second month in special circumstances was provided for by the law, but the transfer of the celebration to another day of the month was not. Such a transfer would have been an illegal and arbitrary innovation, which we cannot suppose Hezekiah capable of. Rather it is clear from the consultation, that the king and his princes and the congregations were persuaded that the passover could be held only on the fourteenth day of the month; for they did not consult as to the day, but only as to the month, upon the basis of the law: if not in the first, then at any rate in the second month. The day was, for those consulting, so definitely fixed that it was never discussed, and is not mentioned at all in the record. If this were so, then the consultation must have taken place in the first month before the fourteenth day, at a time when the lawful day for the celebration was not yet past. This is implied in the words, “for they could not hold it at that time.” ההיא בּעת is the first month, in contrast to “in the second month;” not this or that day of the month. Now, since the reason given for their not being able to hold it in the first month is that the priests had not sufficiently purified themselves, and the people had not assembled themselves in Jerusalem, we learn with certainty from these reasons that it is not a celebration of the passover in the first year of Hezekiah's reign which is here treated of, as almost all commentators think.^[14]
In the whole narrative there is nothing to favour such a supposition, except (1) the circumstance that the account of this celebration is connected by ו consec. (in ויּשׁלח) with the preceding purification of the temple and restoration of the Jahve-worship which took place in the first year of Hezekiah's reign; and (2) the statement that the priests had not sufficiently sanctified themselves, 2Ch 30:3, which, when compared with that in 2Ch 29:34, that the number of priests who had sanctified themselves was not sufficient to flay the beasts for sacrifice, makes it appear as if the passover had been celebrated immediately after the consecration of the temple; and (3) the mention of the second month in 2Ch 30:2, which, taken in connection with the mention of the first month in 2Ch 29:3, 2Ch 29:17, seems to imply that the second month of the first year of Hezekiah's reign is meant. But of these three apparent reasons none is convincing.
The use of ו consec. to connect the account of the celebration of the passover with the preceding, without the slightest hint that the celebration took place in another (later) year, is fully accounted for by the fact that in no case is the year in which any event of Hezekiah's twenty-nine years' reign occurred stated in the Chronicle. In 2Ch 32:1, Sennacherib's invasion of Judah is introduced only by the indefinite formula, “and after these events,” though it happened in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah; while the arrangements as to the public worship made by this king, and recorded in 2 Chron 31, belong to the first years of his reign. Only in the case of the restoration of the Jahve-worship is it remarked, 2Ch 29:3, that Hezekiah commenced it in the very first year of his reign, because that was important in forming an estimate of the spirit of his reign; but the statement of the year in which his other acts were done had not much bearing upon the practical aim of the chronicler. Nor does the reason given for the transfer of the celebration of the passover to the second month, viz., that the priests had not sufficiently sanctified themselves, prove that the celebration took place in the first year of Hezekiah. During the sixteen years' reign of the idolater Ahaz, the priesthood had beyond doubt fallen very low, - become morally sunk, so that the majority of them would not immediately make haste to sanctify themselves for the Jahve-worship. Finally, the retrospective reference to 2Ch 29:3, 2Ch 29:17, would certainly incline us to take השּׁני בּחרשׁ to mean the second month of the first year; but yet it cannot be at once taken in that sense, unless the reasons given for the transfer of the celebration of the passover to the second month point to the first year. But these reasons, so far from doing so, are rather irreconcilable with that view. The whole narrative, 2 Chron 29 and 30, gives us the impression that Hezekiah had not formed the resolution to hold a passover to which the whole of Israel and Judah, all the Israelites of the ten tribes as well as the citizens of his kingdom, should be invited before or during the purification of the temple; at least he did not consult with his princes and the heads of Jerusalem at that time. According to 2Ch 29:20, the king assembled the princes of the city only after the report had been made to him, on the completion of the purification of the temple on the sixteenth day of the first month, when he summoned them to the dedication of the purified temple by solemn sacrifice. But this consecratory solemnity occupied several days. The great number of burnt-offerings, - first seven bullocks, seven rams, and seven lambs, besides the sin-offering for the consecration of the temple (2Ch 29:21); then, after the completion of these, the voluntary burnt-offering of the congregation, consisting of 70 bullocks, 100 rams, and 200 lambs, together with and exclusive of the thank-offerings (2Ch 29:32), - could not possibly be burnt on one day on one altar of burnt-offering, and consequently the sacrificial meal could not well be held on the same day. If, then, the king consulted with the princes and the assembly about the passover after the conclusion of or during celebration, - say in the time between the seventeenth and the twentieth day, - it could not be said that the reason of the postponement of the passover was that the priests had not yet sufficiently sanctified themselves, and the people were not assembled in Jerusalem: it would only have been said that the fourteenth day of the first month was already past. Caspari has therefore rightly regarded this as decisive. But besides that, the invitation to all Israel (of the ten tribes) to this passover is more easily explained, if the celebration of it took place after the breaking up of the kingdom of the ten tribes by the Assyrians, than if it was before that catastrophe, in the time of Hosea, the last king of that kingdom. Though King Hosea may not have been so evil as some of his predecessors, yet it is said of him also, “he did that which was evil in the sight of Jahve” (2Ki 17:2). Would Hezekiah have ventured, so long as Hosea reigned, to invite his subjects to a passover at Jerusalem? and would Hosea have permitted the invitation, and not rather have repelled it as an interference with his kingdom? Further, in the invitation, the captivity of the greater part of the ten tribes is far too strongly presupposed to allow us to imagine that the captivity there referred to is the carrying away of several tribes by Tiglath-pileser. The words, “the escaped who are left to you from the hand of the king of Assyria” (2Ch 30:6), presuppose more than the captivity of the two and a half trans-Jordanic tribes and the Naphtalites; not merely because of the plural, the “kings of Assur,” but also because the remaining five and a half tribes were not at all affected by Tiglath-pileser's deportation, while there is no mention made of any being carried away by King Pul, nor is it a probable thing in itself; see on 1Ch 5:26. Finally, according to 2Ch 31:1, the Israelites who had been assembled in Jerusalem for the passover immediately afterwards destroyed the pillars, Astartes, high places, and altars, not merely in all Judah and Benjamin, but also in Ephraim and Manasseh (consequently even in the capital of the kingdom of the ten tribes), “unto completion,” i.e., completely, leaving nothing of them remaining. Is it likely that King Hosea, and the other inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes who had not gone to the passover, but had laughed at and mocked the messengers of Hezekiah (2Ch 30:10), would have quietly looked on and permitted this? All these things are incomprehensible if the passover was held in the first year of Hezekiah, and make it impossible to accept that view.
Moreover, even the preparation for this passover demanded more time than from the seventeenth day of the first month to the fourteenth day of the second. The calling of the whole people together, “from Dan to Beersheba” (2Ch 30:5), could not be accomplished in three weeks. Even if Hezekiah's messengers may have gone throughout the land and returned home again in that time, we yet cannot suppose that those invited, especially those of the ten tribes, could at once commence their journey, so as to appear in Jerusalem at the time of the feast. In consequence of all these things, we must still remain stedfastly of the opinion already expressed in this volume in the Commentary on the Books of Kings (p. 306ff.), that this passover was not held in the first year of Hezekiah, only a week or two after the restoration of the Jahve-worship according to the law had been celebrated. But if it was not held in the first year, then it cannot have been held before the ruin of the kingdom of the ten tribes, in the sixth year of Hezekiah. In the third year of Hezekiah, Shalmaneser marched upon Samaria, and besieged the capital of the kingdom of the ten tribes. But during the occupation of that kingdom by the Assyrians, Hezekiah could not think of inviting its inhabitants to a passover in Jerusalem. He can have resolved upon that only after the Assyrians had again left the country, Samaria having been conquered, and the Israelites carried away. “But after an end had been thoroughly made of the kingdom of the house of Israel, Hezekiah might regard himself as the king of all Israel, and in this character might invite the remnant of the ten tribes, as his subjects, to the passover (cf. Jer 40:1); and he might cherish the hope, as the Israelitish people had been just smitten down by this last frightful catastrophe, that its remaining members would humble themselves under the mighty hand of God, which had been laid on them solemnly, and turning to Him, would comply with the invitation; while before the ruin of the Israelitish kingdom, in inviting the Israelites of the ten tribes, he would have been addressing the subjects of a foreign king” (Caspari, S. 125). And with this view, the statement, 2Ch 30:10, that the messengers of Hezekiah were laughed at by the majority of the Israelites, in the land of Ephraim and Manasseh unto Zebulun, may be easily reconciled. “If we only look,” as Caspari pertinently says in answer to this objection, “at the conduct of those who remained in Judea after the destruction of Jerusalem, and who soon afterwards fled to Egypt to Jeremiah (Jer 42:4), we will understand how the majority of the people of the kingdom of the ten tribes, who remained behind after the deportation by Shalmaneser, could be hardened and blinded enough to laugh at and mock the messengers of Hezekiah.”
But if Hezekiah formed the resolution of holding such a passover festival only after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, it may perhaps be asked why he did not take the matter into consideration early enough to allow of the festival being held at the legal time, i.e., in the first month? To this we certainly cannot give an assured answer, because, from the reasons given for the delay of the passover to the second month (2Ch 30:3), we can only gather that, when the king consulted with the princes in the matter, there was no longer sufficient time to carry out the celebration in the manner proposed at the legal time. But it is quite possible that Hezekiah resolved to invite the remnant of the ten tribes to the next passover, only in the beginning of the year, when the Assyrians had withdrawn from the land, and that in the consultation about the matter the two circumstances mentioned in 2Ch 30:3 were decisive for the postponement of the feast to the second month. It became clear, on the one hand, that the whole priesthood was not yet sufficiently prepared for it; and on the other, that the summoning of the people could not be accomplished before the 14th Nisan, so as to allow of the feast being held in the way proposed at the legal time; and accordingly it was decided, in order to avoid the postponement of the matter for a whole year, to take advantage of the expedient suggested by the law, and to hold the feast in the second month. From 2Ch 30:14 and 2Ch 31:1 we gather that at that time there were still standing in Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah and Benjamin, Mazzeboth, Asherim, Bamoth, and altars; consequently, that the Baal-worship had not yet been extirpated. The continuance of the Baal-worship, and that on the high places in Jerusalem and Judah, until the sixth or seventh year of Hezekiah's reign, will not much astonish us, if we consider that even before Ahaz the most pious kings had not succeeded in quite suppressing worship on the high places on the part of the people. The reopening of the temple, and of the Jahve-worship in it, Hezekiah might undertake and carry out in the beginning of his reign, because he had all those of the people who were well inclined upon his side. But it was otherwise with the altars on the high places, to which the people from ancient times had been firmly attached. These could not be immediately destroyed, and may have been again restored here and there after they had been destroyed, even in the corners of the capital. Many Levitic priests had, to a certainty, taken part in this worship on high places, since, as a rule, it was not heathen idols, but Jahve, to whom sacrifice was offered upon the high places, though it was done in an illegal way. Such Levitic priests of the high places could not, even if they had not practised idolatry, straightway take part in a passover to be celebrated to Jahve according to the precepts of the law. They must first sanctify themselves by abandoning the worship on the high places, and earnestly turning to the Lord and to His law. Now, if the passover was to be a general one, the time necessary for this sanctification of themselves must be granted to these priests. For the sanctification of these priests, and for the invitation of all Israel to the festival, the time up to the fourteenth of the second month was sufficient, and the king's proposal was consequently approved of by the whole assembly.

Verse 5

They established the matter (דּבר יעמידוּ, Vulg. rightly, according to the sense, decreverunt), to make proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beersheba to Dan (cf. Jdg 20:1), that they should come to keep the passover. לרב לא כּי, for not in multitude had they celebrated it, as it is written. These words were interpreted as early as by Rashi thus: they had not celebrated it for a long time according to the precepts of the law, and were referred to the time of the division of the kingdom. But to this Berth. has rightly objected that the use of לרב of time is unusual, and has correctly referred the words to the Israelites: they had not celebrated it in multitude, i.e., in the assembly of the whole people, as the law required. The words consequently tell us nothing as to the length of time during which it had not been celebrated in multitude: as to that, see 2Ch 30:26. Still less does it follow from the words that under Hezekiah, after the restoration of the temple worship, the passover had not been yearly held.

Verse 6

2Ch 30:6 “The runners (whether soldiers of the royal body-guard, cf. 2Ch 12:10, or other royal couriers, as Est 3:13, Est 3:15, cannot be determined) went with letters from the hand of the king, ... and according to the commandment of the king to say.” To the written invitation of the king and his princes they were to add words of exhortation: “Turn again to Jahve, ... that He may return (turn Himself) to the remnant which remains to you from the hand of the kings of Assyria,” i.e., of Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser.

Verse 7

Be not like your fathers, your brethren, i.e., those carried away by Tiglath and Shalmaneser. On לשׁמּה יתּגם cf. 2Ch 29:8.

Verse 8

Be not stiff-necked; cf. 2Ki 17:14. “Give the hand to the Lord,” i.e., here, not submit yourselves, as 1Ch 29:24, construed with תּחת; it denotes the giving of the hand as a pledge of fidelity, as in 2Ki 10:15; Ezr 10:19; Eze 17:18.

Verse 9

If ye return to the Lord, your brethren and your sons (who are in exile) shall be for mercy, i.e., shall find mercy of them who carried them away, and for returning, i.e., and they shall return into this land. וגו חנּוּן כּי, cf. Exo 34:6.

Verses 10-11

The couriers went about from city to city in the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, even unto Zebulun; but the people laughed to scorn and mocked at the summons to return, and the invitation to the passover festival. The words “from city to city” are not inconsistent with the view that the kingdom of Israel had already been ruined. The Assyrians had not blotted out all the cities from the face of the land, nor carried away every one of the inhabitants to the last man, but had been satisfied with the capture of the fortresses and their partial or complete demolition, and carried only the flower of the inhabitants away. No doubt also many had saved themselves from deportation by flight to inaccessible places, who then settled again and built in the cities and villages which had not been completely destroyed, or perhaps had been completely spared, after the enemy had withdrawn. From the statement, moreover, that the couriers passed through the land of Ephraim and Manasseh unto Zebulun, no proof can be derived that the messengers did not touch upon the domain of the tribes led away captive by Tiglath-pileser (Naphtali and the trans-Jordanic land), but only visited those districts of the country which formed the kingdom of Israel as it continued to exist after Tiglath-pileser. If that were so, it would follow that the kingdom had not then been destroyed. But the enumeration is not complete, as is manifest from the fact that, according to 2Ch 30:11 and 2Ch 30:18, men of the tribes of Asher and Issachar came to Jerusalem in compliance with the invitation; and the domain of Asher extended to the northern frontier of Canaan. If we further take it into consideration, that, according to the resolution of the king and his princes, all Israel, from Beersheba on the southern frontier to Dan on the northern, were to be invited, it is not to be doubted that the couriers went through the whole land.

Verse 12

Also upon Judah came the hand of God, to give them one heart, to do... The phrase בּ היתה יהוה יד has usually a punitive signification (cf. Exo 9:3; Deu 2:15, etc.), but here it is the helping hand of God. God wrought powerfully upon Judah to make them of one mind. יהוה בּדבר as in 2Ch 29:15.

Verse 13

2Ch 30:13The celebration of the passover. - 2Ch 30:13. The assembly of the people at Jerusalem to celebrate the feast became a great congregation.

Verse 14

Before the slaying of the passover, in order to purify and sanctify the city for the feast, they removed the (illegal) altars and places for offering incense which had been erected under Ahaz (2Ch 28:24), and threw them into the Kidron (2Ch 29:16). מקטּרות is here a substantive: places for incense-offerings (cf. Ew. §160, e), and denotes altars intended for the offering of the קטרת.

Verse 15

When they slaughtered the passover on the 14th, the Levites and priests also were ashamed, i.e., had sanctified themselves under the influence of a feeling of shame, and offered the sacrifice in the house of the Lord; i.e., they performed the sacrificial functions incumbent upon them at the passover in the temple, as is stated more in detail in 2Ch 30:16. The clause וגו והכּהנים is a circumstantial clause, and the statement points back to 2Ch 30:3. The mention of Levites along with the priests here is worthy of remark, since in 2Ch 29:34 it is said that at the celebration of the dedication of the temple the Levites had sanctified themselves more zealously than the priests. But these two statements do not contradict each other. In 2Ch 29:34 it is the Levites and priests then present in or dwelling in Jerusalem who are spoken of; here, on the contrary, it is the priests and the Levites of the whole kingdom of Judah. Even though, at the former period, the Levites were more zealous in sanctifying themselves for the dedication of the temple, yet there must certainly have been many Levites in Judah, who, like many of the priests, did not immediately purify themselves from their defilement by the worship in the high places, and were only impelled and driven to sanctify themselves for the service of the Lord by the Zeal of the people who had come to Jerusalem to hold the passover.

Verses 16-17

Standing in their place, according to their right, i.e., according to the prescribed arrangement (see on 1Ch 6:17), the priests sprinkled the blood (of the paschal lambs) from the hand of the Levites, they handing it to them. This was not the rule: in the case of the paschal lamb, the father of the family who slew the lamb had to hand the blood to the priest, that it might be sprinkled upon the altar; here the Levites did it for the reasons given in 2Ch 30:17. Because many in the assembly had not sanctified themselves, the Levites presided over the slaying of the paschal lambs for every one who was unclean, to sanctify (the lambs) to the Lord (see also on 2Ch 35:6, 2Ch 35:11). רבּת, stat. constr. before the noun with a preposition, stands as neuter substantively: there was a multitude in the assembly who...רבּת, in 2Ch 30:18 is to be taken in a similar manner, not as an adverb (Berth.). וגו מאפרים רבּת is in apposition to העם מרבּית, a multitude of people, viz.: Many of Ephraim ... had not purified themselves, but ate the passover in an illegal fashion, not according to the precept (cf. Num 9:6). This clause explains how it happened that the Levites presided at the slaying of the passover for those who had not sanctified themselves, i.e., they caught the blood and gave it to the priests. Had this been done by persons levitically unclean, the expiatory sacrificial blood would have been defiled. The eating of the paschal lamb or the participation in the passover meal was indeed allowed only to the clean; but yet it was not so holy an act, i.e., did not bring the people into such immediate contact with God, who was present at His altar, that those who were not clean might not, under some circumstances, be admitted to it. Here it was allowed, for Hezekiah had prayed for them that God might forgive the transgression of the law.

Verses 18-19

2Ch 30:18-19 2Ch 30:18 ends, according to the Masoretic verse-division, with the preposition בּעד; but that division seems merely to have arisen from ignorance of the construction heekiyn כּל-l|baabow, of the fact that בּעד stands before a relative sentence without אשׁר, like אל in 1Ch 15:12, and is certainly wrong. If we separate בּעד from what follows, we must, with Aben Ezra, supply אלּה, and make הכין (2Ch 30:19) refer to Hezekiah, both being equally inadmissible. Rightly, therefore, the lxx, Vulg., and also Kimchi, with the majority of commentators, have given up this division of the verses as incorrect, and connected the words in this way: May the good Jahve atone, i.e., forgive every one who has fixed his heart (cf. 2Ch 12:14) to seek God, Jahve, the God of his fathers, but not in accordance with the purity of the sanctuary. This intercession of Hezekiah's is worthy of remark, not only because it expresses the conviction that upright seeking of the Lord, which proceeds from the heart, is to be more highly estimated than strict observance of the letter of the law, but also because Hezekiah presumes that those who had come out of Ephraim, etc., to the passover had fixed their heart to seek Jahve, the God of their fathers, but had not been in a position to comply with the precept of the law, i.e., to purify themselves up to the day appointed for the passover.

Verse 20

God heard this intercession, and healed the people. רפא, sanare, is not to be explained by supposing, with Bertheau, that first sickness, and then even death, were to be expected as the results of transgression of the law, according to Lev 15:31, and that the people might be already regarded as sick, as being on the point of becoming so. The use of the word is explained by the fact that sin was regarded as a spiritual disease, so that רפא is to be understood of healing the soul (as Psa 41:5), or the transgression (Hos 14:5; Jer 3:22).

Verse 21

And the Israelites that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness; and the Levites and priests praised the Lord day by day, singing to the Lord ליהוה עז בּכלי, “with instruments of power to the Lord,” i.e., with which they ascribed power to the Lord; or, to express it more clearly, which they played to the praise of the power of the Lord. The stringed instruments played by the Levites, and the trumpets blown by the priests, to accompany the psalm-singing, are meant. The singing of praise in connection with the sacrificial service took place on the seventh day of the feast.

Verse 22

Hezekiah spoke to the heart of all the Levites, i.e., spoke encouraging words of acknowledgment to all the Levites, “who showed good understanding in regard to Jahve,” i.e., not qui erant rerum divinarum peritiores aliosque instruere poterant, but, as Clericus has already said, those who had distinguished themselves by intelligent playing to the honour of the Lord. “And they ate” - not merely the Levites and priests, but all who took part in the festival - the festal sacrifices, seven days. The expression את־המּועד אכל, to hold the festal sacrificial meal, is formed after את־הפּסח אכל, to eat the passover = the passover meal. This we gather from the following participial clause, “offering peace-offerings,” of which the sacrificial meals were prepared. וּמתודּים, and acknowledged the Lord, the God of their fathers. הדותה denotes here neither “to make confession of sin,” nor “to approach with thank-offerings” (Berth.), but simply to acknowledge the Lord with heart and mouth, word and deed, or by prayer, praise, thanks, and offering of sacrifice.

Verses 23-24

2Ch 30:23-24Prolongation of the festival for seven days more, and the conclusion of it. - 2Ch 30:23. Since the king and the princes had given a very large number of beasts for sacrifice as thank-offerings, it was resolved to keep joy for other seven days, i.e., to keep them festally, with sacrificial meals. The expression ימים עשׂה, to hold or celebrate days, is similar to פסח עשׂה, to hold the passover. שׂמהה is an adverbial accusative: in joy. For this resolution two reasons are given in 2Ch 30:24 : 1. Hezekiah had given to the assembly 1000 bullocks and 7000 head of small cattle, and the princes had given 1000 bullocks and 10,000 head of small cattle besides; so that there was more than they could use during the seven days of the Mazzoth feast. Bertheau incorrectly supposes that these were “rich gifts for further sacrificial feasts.” The gifts were bestowed for the Mazzoth festival, but were so plentiful that they sufficed for another festival of seven days. הרים, like תּרוּמה, denotes to bestow, i.e., to present beasts, etc., with the design that they should be used as sacrifices; cf. 2Ch 35:7. 2. The second reason: “priests also had sanctified themselves in multitude,” so as to be able to carry on the service at the altar, even with such numerous sacrifices, refers back to 2Ch 30:15 and 2Ch 30:3.

Verse 25

Concluding remarks on this festival. There took part in it (1) the whole congregation of Judah, and the priests and Levites; (2) the whole congregation of those who had come out of Israel (the ten tribes); (3) the strangers, both those who came out of the land of Israel and those dwelling in Judah.

Verse 26

The joy was great, for there had not been the like in Jerusalem since the days of Solomon. The meaning is, that this feast could be compared only with the feast at the dedication of the temple in the time of Solomon, 2Ch 7:1-10, in respect to its length, the richness of the sacrificial gifts, the multitude of those who participated, and the joyous feeling it caused” (Berth.). The feast at the dedication of the temple had been a festival of fourteen days; for the feast of tabernacles, which lasted seven days, came immediately after the proper dedicatory feast, and since the time of Solomon all the tribes had never been united at a feast in Jerusalem.

Verse 27

At the end of the Levitic priests dismissed the people with the blessing (the ו before הלויּם in some MSS, and which the lxx, Vulg., and Syr. also have, is a copyist's gloss brought from 2Ch 30:25; cf. against it, 2Ch 23:18), and the historian adds, “Their voice was heard, and their prayer came to His holy dwelling-place, to heaven.” This conclusion he draws from the divine blessing having been upon the festival; traceable partly in the zeal which the people afterwards showed for the public worship in the temple (2 Chron 31), partly in the deliverance of Judah and Jerusalem from the attack of the Assyrian Sennacherib (2 Chron 32).

Chap. 31

Verse 1

2Ch 31:1Destruction of the idols and the altars of the high places. Provisions for the ordering and maintenance of the temple worship, and the attendants upon it. - 2Ch 31:1. At the conclusion of the festival, all the Israelites who had been present at the feast (הנּמצאים כּל־שׂראל to be understood as in 2Ch 30:21) went into the cities of Judah, and destroyed all the idols, high places, and altars not only in Judah and Benjamin (the southern kingdom), but also in Ephraim and Manasseh (the domain of the ten tribes), utterly (עד־לככּה, cf. 2Ch 24:10), and only then returned each to his home; cf. 2Ki 18:4.

Verse 2

2Ch 31:2Restoration of order in the public worship, and of the temple revenues and those of the priests. - 2Ch 31:2. Hezekiah appointed the courses of the priests and Levites according to their courses, each according to the measure of his service (cf. Num 7:5, Num 7:7), viz., the priests and Levites (ולל לכה are subordinated to אישׁ in apposition by ל), for burnt-offerings and thank-offerings, to serve (to wait upon the worship), and to praise and thank (by song and instrumental music) in the gates of the camp of Jahve, i.e., in the temple and court of the priests; see on 1Ch 9:18.

Verse 3

And the portion of the king from his possession was for the burnt-offerings, etc.; that is, the material for the burnt-offerings which are commanded in Num 28 and 29 the king gave from his possessions, which are enumerated in 2Ch 32:27-29.

Verses 4-8

The priests and Levites received their maintenance from the first-fruits (Exo 23:19; Num 18:12; Deu 26:2) and the tithes, which the people had to pay from the produce of their cattle-breeding and their agriculture (Lev 27:30-33, cf. with Num 18:21-24). Hezekiah commanded the people, viz., the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to give this portion to the Levites and priests, that they might hold themselves firmly to the law of Jahve, i.e., might devote themselves to the duties laid upon them by the law, the attendance upon the worship, without being compelled to labour for their subsistence; cf. Neh 13:10.

Verses 5-6

When the word (the royal command) went forth (spread abroad), the Israelites brought in abundance the first-fruits which had been assigned to the priests (2Ch 18:12.), and the tithes, which were paid to the whole tribe of Levi (Num 18:21-24). ישׂראל בּני, 2Ch 31:6, are not the inhabitants of the northern kingdom, but the Israelites who had emigrated from that kingdom into Judah (as 2Ch 30:25; 2Ch 11:16; 2Ch 10:17). קדשׁים מעשׂר, the tenth from the holy gifts which were consecrated to Jahve, is surprising, since in the law, Num 18:8., it is not the tenth of the consecrated gifts which is spoken of, but only הקּדשׁים תרוּמות (Num 18:19). Proceeding upon the assumption that all קדשׁים which were consecrated to Jahve were given over to the tribe of Levi, Bertheau finds no correspondence between the law and the statement of our verse, that the tenth of the holy things was given, and points out that the lxx seem to have read והקּשׁים ועז instead of קדשׁים m`sr, without, however, himself deciding in favour of that reading. But the lxx have rendered the words hmqdsym קדשׁים קדשׁים by ἐπιδέκατα αἰγῶν, καὶ ἡγίασαν, and consequently cannot have read ועז for מעשׂר, since in their translation epide'kata corresponds to m`sr. But the deviation of the statement in our verse from the law, Num 18, arises partly from an incorrect or inexact interpretation of the provisions of the law, Num 18:8. In the law, קדשׁים as such were not assigned to the tribe of Levi, or more correctly to the priests (Aaron and his sons), but only the לכל־קדשׁים תּרוּמות, the heave-offerings of all the holy gifts of the sons of Israel, i.e., the pieces or parts of the sacrificial gifts of the Israelites which were not burnt upon the altar, consequently the greater part of the meal, and oil, and flesh of the oblations, the sin-offerings, the trespass-offerings, and of the peace-offerings, the wave-breast and wave-thigh, and whatever else was waved in wave-offerings; see on Num 18:8. These Therumoth of the consecrated gifts are in our verse designated קדשׁים מעשׂר, because they were only a fragment of that which was consecrated to the Lord, just as the tenth was a fragment of the whole herd, and of the field produce. The statement of our verse, therefore, differs only in expression from the prescription of the law, but in substance it completely agrees with it. ער ערמות ויּתּנוּ, and they made many heaps, i.e., they brought the first-fruits and tithes in heaps.

Verse 7

In the third month, consequently immediately at the end of the grain harvest, they commenced to found the heaps (to lay the foundation of the heaps); and in the seventh month, i.e., at the end of the fruit and wine harvest, they completed them (the heaps). In the third month fell pentecost, or the harvest feast; in the seventh, the feast of tabernacles, after the gathering in of all the fruits. ליסּוד has Daghesh in ס, because this verb in the imperf. assimilates its י like נ to the second radical, and the infinitive is formed after the imperf.; cf. Ew. §245, a.

Verses 8-10

When Hezekiah and the priests saw these heaps, they praised the Lord and His people Israel. The employment and storing of these gifts, 2Ch 31:9-19. - 2Ch 31:9. Hezekiah questioned (ידרשׁ) the priests and Levites concerning the heaps, i.e., not as to whether they were sufficient for the support of the priests and Levites, but as to how it happened that such masses had been heaped up. Thereupon Azariah the high priest (hardly the Azariah mentioned 2Ch 26:17, who forty years before tried to prevent Uzziah from pressing into the holy place), of the house of Zadok, answered him: Since they began to bring (לביא for להביא) the heave-offerings into the house of the Lord, we have eaten and satisfied ourselves, and have left in plenty. The infin. absol. והותר ושׂבוע אכול stand in animated speech instead of the first pers. plur. perf. From the same animation arises the construction of את־ההמון with הנּותר; for “that which is left” signifies, and we have left this quantity here.

Verses 11-12

Then the king commanded to prepare cells in the house of God for the storing of the provisions. Whether new cells were built, or cells already existing were prepared for this purpose, cannot be decided, since הכין may signify either. Into these cells they brought the תּרוּמה, which here denotes the first-fruits (cf. 2Ch 31:5), the tithes, and the dedicated things, בּאמוּנה, with fidelity, cf. 2Ch 19:9. עליהם, over them (the first-fruits, etc.) the Levite Cononiah was set as ruler (inspector), and his brother Shimei as second ruler (משׁנה).

Verses 13-14

To them at their hand, i.e., as subordinate overseers, were given ten Levites, who are enumerated by name. Of the names, Jehiel and Mahath occur in 2Ch 29:12 and 2Ch 29:14. בּמפקד is translated by the Vulg. ex imperio, better ex mandato Hizkiae. Azariah, the prince of the house of God, is the high priest mentioned in 2Ch 31:10. - To the fourteen Levites named in 2Ch 31:13 and 2Ch 31:14 was committed the oversight and storing of the first-fruits, tithes, and consecrated gifts. Besides these, there were special officers appointed for the distribution of them. - In 2Ch 31:14-19 these are treated of; 2Ch 31:14 dealing with the distribution of the voluntary gifts of God, i.e., all which was offered to God of spontaneous impulse (Lev 23:38; Deu 12:17), to which the first-fruits and tithes did not belong, they being assessments prescribed by the law. Over the freewill offerings the Levite Kore, the doorkeeper towards the east (see on 1Ch 9:18), was set. His duty was to give (distribute) “the heave-offerings of Jahve,” i.e., that portion of the thank-offerings which properly belonged to Jahve, and which was transferred by Him to the priests (Lev 7:14; Num 5:9), and the “most holy,” i.e., that part of the sin and trespass offerings (Lev 6:10, Lev 6:22; Lev 7:6) and of the oblations (Lev 2:3, Lev 2:10) which was to be eaten by the priests in the holy place.

Verses 15-16

At his hand (ידו על = מיּד, 2Ch 31:13), i.e., under his superintendence, there were six Levites, enumerated by name, in the priests' cities, with fidelity, “to give to their brethren in their courses, as well to the great as to the small” (i.e., to the older and to the younger), sc. the portion of the gifts received which fell to each. By the brethren in their courses we are to understand not merely the Levites dwelling in the priests' cities, who on account of their youth or old age could not come into the temple, but also those who at the time were not on duty, since the Levites' courses performed it by turns, only some courses being on duty in the temple, while the others were at home in the priests' cities. The object to לתת, 2Ch 31:15, is not to be taken straightway from the objects mentioned with לתת in 2Ch 31:14. For the most holy gifts could not be sent to the priests' cities, but were consumed in the holy place, i.e., in the temple. Nor can we confine לתת to the האלהים נדבות; for since the gifts of the people, laid up in the cells, consisted in first-fruits, tithes, and consecrated gifts (2Ch 31:11), and special officers were appointed for the storing and distribution of them, the business of distribution could not consist merely in the giving out of freewill offerings, but must have extended to all the offerings of the people. When, therefore, it is said of the Levite Kore, in 2Ch 31:14, that he was appointed over the freewill offerings, to distribute the heave-offerings and the most holy, only his chief function is there mentioned, and the functions of the officials associated with and subordinated to him in the priests' cities are not to be confined to that. The object to לתת, 2Ch 31:15, is consequently to be determined by the whole context, and the arrangements which are assumed as known from the law; i.e., we must embrace under that word the distribution of the first-fruits, tithes, and consecrated gifts, of which the Levites in the priests' cities were to receive their portion according to the law. - In 2Ch 31:16, the b|מחלקות אחיהם of 2Ch 31:15 is more closely defined by an exception: “Besides their catalogue of the men (i.e., exclusive of those of the male sex catalogued by them) from three years old and upward, namely, of all those who came into the house of Jahve to the daily portion, for their service in their offices according to their courses.” בּיומו דּבר־יום signifies, in this connection, the portion of the holy gifts coming to them for every day; cf. Neh 11:23. The meaning of the verse is: From those dwelling in the priests' cities were excluded those who had come to perform service in the temple; and, indeed, not merely those performing the service, but also their male children, who were catalogued along with them if they were three years old and upward. Thence it is clear that those entering upon their service took their sons with them when they were three years old. These children ate in the place of the sanctuary of the portion coming to their parents.

Verse 17

2Ch 31:17 2Ch 31:17 contains a parenthetic remark as to the catalogues. ואת, as nota accus., serves here to emphasize the statement which is added as an elucidation (cf. Ew. §277, d): “But concerning the catalogue of the priests, it was (taken, prepared) according to the fathers'-houses; and the Levites, they were from twenty years old and upwards in their offices in their courses.” All the duties were discharged by several courses. On the age fixed on, see 1Ch 23:27.

Verse 18

The connection and interpretation of this verse is doubtful. If we take וּלחתיחשׂ as a continuation of ואת־התיהשׁ, 2Ch 31:17, it gives us no suitable sense. The addition, “and also to every priest and Levite was a larger or smaller portion given according to the catalogue” (Ramb., etc.), is arbitrary, and does not fully express the בּ before כּל־טפּם. Berth., on the other hand, correctly remarks, “After the parentheses in 2Ch 31:16 and 2Ch 31:17, וּלחתיחשׂ may be taken as a continuation of לתת in 2Ch 31:16;” but the word itself he translates wrongly thus: The men were in the priests' cities, also to register their children, etc., disregarding the construction of התיחשׂ with בּ. - From 2Ch 31:19, where the same construction recurs, we learn how to interpret בּכל־ט התיחשׁ: the catalogue = those registered in (of) all their children. According to this view, ולהתיחשׂ corresponds to the לאחיהם, 2Ch 31:15 : to give to their brethren, ... and to the registered of all their children, their wives, and their sons and daughters, viz., to the whole multitude (sc., of the wives, sons, and daughters), i.e., as many of them as there were. This interpretation of the לכל־קהל seems simpler than with Schmidt and Ramb. to understand קהל to denote the coroporation of priests. There was therefore no one forgotten or overlooked; “for according to their fidelity (2Ch 31:15) did they show themselves holy in regard to the holy,” i.e., they acted in a holy manner with the holy gifts, distributed them disinterestedly and impartially to all who had any claim to them.

Verse 19

And for the sons of Aaron, the priests, in the field of the districts of their cities (cf. Lev 25:34; Num 35:5), in each city were men (appointed) famous (בשׁמות נקּבוּ אשׁר, as in 2Ch 28:15; see on 1Ch 12:31), to give portions to each male among the priests, and to all that were registered among the Levites. As for the inhabitants of the priests' cities (2Ch 31:15), so also for the priests and Levites dwelling in the pasture grounds of the priests' cities, were special officers appointed to distribute the priestly revenues.

Verses 20-21

The conclusion of this account. Thus did Hezekiah in all Judah, and wrought in general that which was good and right and האמת before the Lord his God; and in every work that he commenced for the service of the house of God, and for the law and the commandment (i.e., for the restoration of the law and its commands), to seek his God, he did it with all his heart, and prospered. Sennacherib's campaign against Judah and Jerusalem, and the annihilation of his whole army by the angel of the Lord. In 2 Kings 18 and 19, and Isa 36 and 37, we have two minute parallel accounts of this war, which threatened the existence of the kingdom of Judah, in both of which the course of this attack by the Assyrian world-power upon the kingdom of God is circumstantially narrated. The author of the Chronicle gives only a short narrative of the main events of the struggle; but, notwithstanding its brevity, supplies us with several not unessential additions to these detailed accounts. After stating that Sennacherib invaded Judah with the design of conquering the kingdom for himself (2Ch 32:1), the author of the Chronicle described the preparations which Hezekiah made for the defence of the capital in case it should be besieged (2Ch 32:2-8). Then we have an account of Sennacherib's attempts to get Jerusalem into his power, by sending his generals, who sought to induce the people to submit by boastful speeches, and by writing threatening letters to Hezekiah (2Ch 32:9-19); and, finally, of Hezekiah's prayer to God for help, and the answer to his prayer - the wonderful annihilation of the Assyrian army (2Ch 32:20-23). The purpose of the chronicler in narrating these events was a didactic one: he wishes to show how God the Lord helped the pious King Hezekiah in this danger to his kingdom, and humbled the presumption of Sennacherib confiding in the might of his powerful army. For this purpose, a brief rhetorical summary of the main events of the struggle and its issues was sufficient. As to the facts, see the commentary on 2 Kings 18f. and Isa. 36f.

Chap. 32

Verse 1

The didactic and rhetorical character of the narrative is manifest in the very form of the introductory statement. Instead of the chronological statement of 2Ki 18:13, we find the loose formula of connection: after these events and this fidelity (cf. 2Ch 31:20), Sennacherib came (בּא) and entered into Judah (ביהוּדה ויּבא), and besieged the fenced cities, and thought (ויּאמר) to break (conquer) them for himself. He had already taken a number of them, and had advanced as far as Lachish in the south-west of Judah, when he made the attempt to get Jerusalem into his power; cf. 2Ki 18:13.

Verses 2-8

2Ch 32:2-8Preparations of Hezekiah for the strengthening and defending of Jerusalem. - We find an account of this neither in 2 Kings 18 nor in Isa 36; ; but the fact is confirmed both by Isa 22:8-11, and by the remark 2Ki 20:20 (cf. 2Ch 32:30 of our chapter).

Verses 2-4

When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib advanced, and his face was to war against Jerusalem, i.e., that he purposed to capture Jerusalem, he consulted with his princes and his valiant men to cover the waters of the springs which were outside the city; and they helped him, brought much people together, and covered all the springs, and the brook which ran through the midst of the land. סתם does not denote to obstruct, but only to hide by covering and conducting the water into subterranean channels. The brook which flowed through the midst of the land is the Gihon, which was formed by the waters flowing from the springs, and was dried up by these springs being covered and the water diverted. For further information, see on 2Ch 32:30. The object of this measure is stated in the words which follow: Why should the kings of Assyria come and find much water? i.e., why should we provide them with much water, when they advance against the city and besiege it? The plural, kings of Assyria, is rhetorical, as in 2Ch 28:16.

Verse 5

The fortification of Jerusalem. יתחזּק, he showed himself strong, courageous, as in 2Ch 15:8; 2Ch 23:1. And he built the whole wall which was broken, i.e., he strengthened it by building up the breaches and defective places; cf. Isa 22:9. The words על־המּגדּלות ויּעל are obscure, since the translation “he mounted on the towers” has no meaning. But if יעל be taken as a Hiph., “he caused to ascend upon the towers,” the object is wanting; and if we supply walls, it is arbitrary, for we might just as well suppose it to be machines which he caused to be carried to the top of the towers for defence against the enemy (2Ch 26:15). The lxx have wholly omitted the words, and the translation of the Vulg., et exstruxit turres desuper, appears to be only a guess, but is yet perhaps correct, and presupposes the reading מגדּלות עליה ויּעל, “and brought up upon it towers,” in favour of which Ewald also decides. This conjecture is in any case simpler than Bertheau's, that על ויעל is a false transcription of ועליה: “he built the whole wall, and towers upon it, and outside was the other wall,” and is therefore to be preferred to it. The “other wall” enclosed the lower city (Acra). This, too, was not first built by Hezekiah; he only fortified it anew, for Isa 22:11 already speaks of two walls, between which a body of water had been introduced: see on 2Ch 32:30. He fortified also the Millo of the city of David (see on 1Ch 11:8), and supplied the fortifications with weapons (שׁלח, a weapon of defence; see on Joe 2:8) in multitude, and with shields; cf. 2Ch 26:14.

Verses 6-8

And, moreover, he set captains of war over the people, i.e., the populace of Jerusalem, assembled them in the open space at the city gate (which gate is not stated; cf. Neh 8:1, Neh 8:16), and addressed them in encouraging words; cf. 2Ch 30:22. On 2Ch 32:7, cf. 2Ch 20:15, Deu 31:6, etc. “For with us is more than with him.” רב, quite general, the closer definition following in 2Ch 32:8 : “With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is Jahve, our God, to help us.” An arm of flesh = frail human power; cf. Isa 21:3 : their (the Egyptians') horses are flesh, not spirit; Jer 17:5; Psa 56:5. “And the people leaned themselves on (i.e., trusted in) the words of Hezekiah.” These statements are not inconsistent with the account in 2Ki 18:14-16, that Hezekiah began to negotiate with the Assyrian king Sennacherib when he had begun to take the fenced cities of the land unto Lachish, promised to pay him tribute, and actually paid the sum demanded, employing for that purpose even the sheet gold on the temple doors. These negotiations are passed over, not only in our narrative, but also in Isa 36, because they had no influence upon the after course and the issue of the war. Sennacherib was not induced to withdraw by the payment of the sum demanded, and soon after the receipt of it he sent a detachment from Lachish against Jerusalem, to summon the city to surrender. The fortification of Jerusalem which the Chronicle records began before these negotiations, and was continued while they were in progress.

Verse 9

2Ch 32:9The advance of an Assyrian army against Jerusalem, and the attempts of Sennacherib's generals to induce the population of the capital to submit by persuasive and threatening speeches, are very breifly narrated, in comparison with 2 Kings 18:17-36. In 2Ch 32:9, neither the names of the Assyrian generals, nor the names of Hezekiah's ambassadors with whom they treated, are given; nor is the place where the negotiation was carried on mentioned. עבדיו, his servants, Sennacherib's generals. על־לך, while he himself lay near (or against) Lachish, and all the army of his kingdom with him. ממשׁלתּו, his dominion, i.e., army of his kingdom; cf. Jer 34:1.

Verses 10-12

Only the main ideas contained in the speech of these generals are reported; in 2Ch 32:10-12 we have the attempt to shake the trust of the people in Hezekiah and in God (2Ki 18:19-22). וישׁבים is a continuation of the question, In what do ye trust, and why sit ye in the distress, in Jerusalem? מסּית as in 2Ki 18:32 : Hezekiah seduces you, to give you over to death by hunger and thirst. This thought is much more coarsely expressed in 2Ki 18:27. - On 2Ch 32:12, cf. 2Ki 18:22 : אחד מזבּח is the one altar of burnt-offering in the temple.

Verses 13-19

The description of Sennacherib's all-conquering power: cf. 2Ki 18:35; Isa 36:20, and Isa 37:11-13. “Who is there among all the gods of these peoples, whom my fathers utterly destroyed, who could have delivered his people out of my hand, that your God should save you?” The idea is, that since the gods of the other peoples, which were mightier than your God, have not been able to save their peoples, how should your God be in a position to rescue you from my power? This idea is again repeated in 2Ch 32:15, as a foundation for the exhortation not to let themselves be deceived and misled by Hezekiah, and not to believe his words, and that in an assertative form: “for not one god of any nation or kingdom was able to deliver his people, ... much less then (כּי אף) your gods: they will not save you;” and this is done in order to emphasize strongly the blasphemy of the Assyrian generals against the Almighty God of Israel. To communicate more of these blasphemous speeches would in the chronicler's view be useless, and he therefore only remarks, in 2Ch 32:16, “And yet more spake his (Sennacherib's) servants against God Jahve, and against His servant Hezekiah;” and then, in 2Ch 32:17, that Sennacherib also wrote a letter of similar purport, and (2Ch 32:18) that his servants called with a loud voice in the Jews' speech to the people of Jerusalem upon the wall, to throw them into fear and terrify them, that they might take the city. What they called to the people is not stated, but by the infinit. וּלבהלם ליראם it is hinted, and thence we may gather that it was to the same effect as the blasphemous speeches above quoted (יראם, inf. Pi., as in Neh 6:19). - On comparing 2 Kings 18 and 19, it is clear that Sennacherib only sent the letter to Hezekiah after his general Rabshakeh had informed him of the fruitlessness of his efforts to induce the people of Jerusalem to submit by speeches, and the news of the advance of the Cushite king Tirhakah had arrived; while the calling aloud in the Jews' language to the people standing on the wall, on the part of his generals, took place in the first negotiation with the ambassadors of Hezekiah. The author of the Chronicle has arranged his narrative rhetorically, so as to make the various events form a climax: first, the speeches of the servants of Sennacherib; then the king's letter to Hezekiah to induce him and his counsellors to submit; and finally, the attempt to terrify the people in language intelligible to them. The conclusion is the statement, 2Ch 32:19 : “They spake of the God of Jerusalem as of the gods of the peoples of the earth, the work of the hands of man;” cf. 2Ki 19:18.

Verse 20

2Ch 32:20Prayer of King Hezekiah and of the prophet Isaiah for the help of the Lord. - 2Ch 32:20. The main contents of Hezekiah's prayer are communicated in 2Ki 19:14-19 and Isa 37:15-19. There it is not expressly said that Isaiah also prayed, but it may be inferred from the statement in 2Ki 19:2. and Isa 37:2. that Hezekiah sent a deputation to the prophet with the request that he would pray for the people. In answer Isaiah promised the ambassadors deliverance, as the word of the Lord. זאת על, on account of this, i.e., on account of the contempt shown for the God of Israel, which was emphatically dwelt upon both in the prayer of Hezekiah (2Ki 19:16) and in the word of Isaiah, v. 22ff.

Verse 21

The deliverance: cf. 2Ki 19:35.; Isa 37:36. The number of Assyrians smitten by the angel of the Lord is not stated, as it was not of importance, the main fact being that the whole Assyrian host was annihilated, so that Sennacherib had to return with disgrace into his own land. This is what is signified by the rhetorical phrase: The angel of Jahve destroyed all the valiant warriors, and the leaders and princes of the king of Assyria, and he returned with shame of face (cf. Ezr 9:7; Psa 44:16) to his land, where his sons slew him in the temple. In regard to the facts, see on 2Ki 19:37 and Isa 37:38. The Keth. מיציאו is an orthographical error for מיציאי, a contraction of מן and יציאי from יציא, a passive formation with intransitive signification: some of those who went forth from his own bowels, i.e., some of his sons; cf. the similar formation miyliydeey, 1Ch 20:4.

Verse 22

Conclusion of this event. So the Lord helped, etc., מיּד־כּל, and out of the hand of all, sc. his enemies; but we need not on that account, with some manuscripts, bring איביו into the text. וינהלם, and protected them round about. נהל, to lead, guide, with the additional idea of care and protection (Psa 31:4; Isa 49:10; Isa 51:18); and consequently here, protect, defend. There is therefore no need of the conjecture להם ויּנח להם erut, which Berth. holds to be the original reading, without considering that, though מסּביב ויּנח is a current phrase with the chronicler (cf. 2Ch 14:6; 2Ch 15:15; 2Ch 20:30; 1Ch 22:18), the supposition that these words became וינהלם מס by an orthographical error is not at all probable.

Verse 23

Many brought gifts to the Lord to Jerusalem, and presents to King Hezekiah. רבּים is not to be restricted to Israelites, but probably denotes chiefly neighbouring peoples, who by the destruction of the Assyrian army were also freed from this dreaded enemy. They, too, might feel impelled to show their reverence for the God of Israel, who had so wonderfully delivered His people by their gifts.

Verse 24

2Ch 32:24Hezekiah's sickness and recovery; his pride and his humiliation. - 2Ch 32:24. As to the sickness of Hezekiah, and the miraculous sign by which the prophet Isaiah assured him of recovery, see the account in 2Ki 20:1-11 and Isa 38. The Chronicle has only given us hints on this matter. ויּאמר and נתן refer to the same subject - God. Hezekiah prayed, and in consequence of his prayer God spake to him, sc. by the mouth of the prophet, and gave him a miraculous sign.

Verse 25

2Ch 32:25 “But Hezekiah rendered not according to the benefit unto him, for his heart was proud.” In his sickness he had promised to walk in humility all his days (Isa 38:15): yet he became proud after his recovery; and his pride showed itself especially in his showing all his treasures to the Babylonian embassy, in idle trust in them and in the resources at his command (cf. 2Ki 20:12-15; Isa 39:1-4). “And there was wrath upon him, and upon Judah and Jerusalem,” which participated in the king's sentiments (cf. 2Ch 19:10; 1Ch 27:24). Isaiah proclaimed this wrath to him in the prophecy that all the treasures of the king would be carried away to Babylon, and that some of his sons should become courtiers of the king of Babylon (2Ki 20:16-18; Isa 39:5-7), to which we should perhaps also reckon the threatening prophecy in Mic 3:12.

Verse 26

Then Hezekiah humbled himself in his pride, and the wrath came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah (cf. Isa 39:8). The threatened judgment was postponed because of this humiliation, and broke over the royal house and the whole kingdom only at a later time in the Chaldean invasion.

Verse 27

2Ch 32:27Hezekiah's riches; concluding estimate of his reign; his death and burial. - 2Ch 32:27. Like Jehoshaphat (2Ch 17:5; 2Ch 18:1), Solomon (2Ch 1:12), and David (1Ch 29:28), Hezekiah attained to riches and glory, and made unto himself treasure-chambers for silver, gold, precious stones, and spices, shields, and all manner of splendid furniture. The מגנּים are named instead of weapons in general. The collection of them brings to recollection the כּליו בּית   (2Ki 20:13 and Isa 39:2).

Verse 28

Storehouses also (magazines) for the agricultural produce, and stalls for all manner of cattle, and stalls for the herds, like David (1Ch 27:25.) and Uzziah (2Ch 26:10). מסכּנות is a transposition of מכנסות, storehouses, from כּנס, to heap up. “Cattle and cattle” = all kinds of cattle. ארות, synonymous with אריות   (2Ch 9:5), stables or stalls for cattle. The word אורות, which occurs only here, must have the same signification, and be held to be a transposed form of that word.

Verse 29

And cities (?) made (procured) he for himself. ערים cannot in this connection denote the usual cities; it must mean either watch-towers (from עוּר, to watch) or dwelling-places for herds and cattle, since עיר, according to 2Ki 17:9, is used of any enclosed place, from a watch-tower to a fenced city. רכוּשׁ, as in 2Ch 31:3, of possessions in herds.

Verse 30

The same Hezekiah covered the upper outlet of the water Gihon, and brought it down westwards to the city of David, i.e., by a subterranean channel into the city of David (see on 2Ch 32:3). The form ויישׁרם is Piel ויישּׁרם; the Keri is the same conjug., only contracted into ויּשּׁרם, as ויּבּשׁ for וייבּשׁ, the ו of the third person having amalgamated with the first radical, under the influence of the ו consec. With the last clause in 2Ch 32:30 cf. 2Ch 31:21; 1Ch 29:23.

Verse 31

2Ch 32:31 “And so (i.e., accordingly) in the case of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, ... God left him.” וכן does not denote attamen; it never has an adversative meaning. Bertheau rightly translates, “and accordingly,” with the further remark, that by וכן the account of Hezekiah's treatment of the Babylonian ambassadors, which could not be reckoned among his fortunate deeds, is brought into harmony with the remark that he prospered in all his undertakings. It was permitted by God that Hezekiah should on this occasion be lifted up, and should commit an iniquity which could not but bring misfortune with it; not in order that He might plunge him into misfortune, but to try him, and to humble him (cf. 2Ch 32:26).

Verse 32

2Ch 32:32 הסדים, pious deeds, as in 2Ch 6:42. ישׂ הזון is the book of Isaiah's prophecies; see the Introduction.

Verse 33

Hezekiah was buried “on the height of the graves of the sons of David,” perhaps because there was no longer room in the hereditary burying-place of the kings; so that for Hezekiah and the succeeding kings special graves had to be prepared in a higher place of the graves of the kings. “They did him honour in his death,” by the burning of many spices, as we may conjecture (cf. 2Ch 16:14; 2Ch 21:19).

Chap. 33

Verses 1-9

2Ch 33:1-9The reign of Manasseh; cf. 2 Kings 21:1-18. - The characteristics of this king's reign, and of the idolatry which he again introduced, and increased in a measure surpassing all his predecessors (2Ch 33:1-9), agrees almost verbally with 2Ki 21:1-9. Here and there an expression is rhetorically generalized and intensified, e.g., by the plurals לבּעלים and אשׁרות (2Ch 33:3) instead of the sing. לבּעל and אשׁרה (Kings), and בּנין (2Ch 33:6) instead of בּנו (see on 2Ch 28:3); by the addition of וכשּׁף to ונחשׁ עונן, and of the name the Vale of Hinnom, 2Ch 33:6 (see on Jos 15:18, גּי for גּיא); by heaping up words for the law and its commandments (2Ch 33:8); and other small deviations, of which הסּמל פּסל (2Ch 33:7) instead of האשׁרה פּסל (Kings) is the most important. The word סמל, sculpture or statue, is derived from Deu 4:16, but has perhaps been taken by the author of the Chronicle from Eze 8:3, where סמל probably denotes the statue of Asherah. The form עילום for עולם (2Ch 33:7) is not elsewhere met with.

Verse 10

At 2Ch 33:10, the account in the Chronicle diverges from that in 2 Kings. In 2Ki 21:10-16 it is related how the Lord caused it to be proclaimed by the prophets, that in punishment of Manasseh's sins Jerusalem would be destroyed, and the people given into the power of their enemies, and how Manasseh filled Jerusalem with the shedding of innocent blood. Instead of this, in 2Ch 33:10 of the Chronicle it is only briefly said that the Lord spake to Manasseh and to his people, but they would not hearken; and then in 2Ch 33:11-17 it is narrated that Manasseh was led away to Babylon by the king of Assyria's captains of the host; in his trouble turned to the Lord his God, and prayed; was thereupon brought by God back to Jerusalem; after his return, fortified Jerusalem with a new wall; set commanders over all the fenced cities of Judah; abolished the idolatry in the temple and the city, and restored the worship of Jahve.

Verse 11

As Manasseh would not hear the words of the prophets, the Lord brought upon him the captains of the host of the king of Assyria. These “took him with hooks, and bound him with double chains of brass, and brought him to Babylon.” בחוחים ילכּדוּ signifies neither, they took him prisoner in thorns (hid in the thorns), nor in a place called Chochim (which is not elsewhere found), but they took him with hooks. חוח denotes the hook or ring which was drawn through the gills of large fish when taken (Job 41:2), and is synonymous with חח   (2Ki 19:28; Eze 19:4), a ring which was passed through the noses of wild beasts to subdue and lead them. The expression is figurative, as in the passages quoted from the prophets. Manasseh is represented as an unmanageable beast, which the Assyrian generals took and subdued by a ring in the nose. The figurative expression is explained by the succeeding clause: they bound him with double chains. נחשׁתּים are double fetters of brass, with which the feet of prisoners were bound (2Sa 3:34; Jdg 16:21; 2Ch 36:6, etc.).

Verses 12-13

2Ch 33:12-13 לו וּכהצר = לו הצר וּבעת,   2Ch 28:22. In this his affliction he bowed himself before the Lord God of his fathers, and besought Him; and the Lord was entreated of him, and brought him again to Jerusalem, into his kingdom. The prayer which Manasseh prayed in his need was contained, according to 2Ch 33:18., in the histories of the kings of Israel, and in the sayings of the prophet Hozai, but has not come down to our day. The “prayer of Manasseh” given by the lxx is an apocryphal production, composed in Greek; cf. my Introduction to the Old Testament, § 247.

Verse 14

After his return, Manasseh took measures to secure his kingdom, and especially the capital, against hostile attacks. “He built an outer wall of the city of David westward towards Gihon in the valley, and in the direction of the fish-gate; and he surrounded the Ophel, and made it very high.” The words היצונה חומה (without the article) point to the building of a new wall. But since it has been already recorded of Hezekiah, in 2Ch 32:5, that he built “the other wall without,” all modern expositors, even Arnold in Herz.'s Realenc. xviii. S. 634, assume the identity of the two walls, and understand ויּבן of the completion and heightening of that “other wall” of which it is said מאד ויּגבּיהה, and which shut in Zion from the lower city to the north. In that case, of course, we must make the correction החומה. The words “westward towards Gihon in the valley, and לבוא ב, in the direction to (towards) the fish-gate,” are then to be taken as describing the course of this wall from its centre, first towards the west, and then towards the east. For the valley of Gihon lay, in all probability, outside of the western city gate, which occupied the place of the present Jaffa gate. But the fish-gate was, according to Neh 3:3, at the east end of this wall, at no great distance from the tower on the north-east corner. The valley (הנּהל) is a hollow between the upper city (Zion) and the lower (Acra), probably the beginning of the valley, which at its south-eastern opening, between Zion and Moriah, is called Tyropoion in Josephus. The words, “he surrounded the Ophel,” sc. with a wall, are not to be connected with the preceding clauses, as Berth. connects them, translating, “he carried the wall from the north-east corner farther to the south, and then round the Ophel;” for “between the north-east corner and the Ophel wall lay the whole east wall of the city, as far as to the south-east corner of the temple area, which yet cannot be regarded as a continuation of the wall to the Ophel wall” (Arnold, loc. cit.). Jotham had already built a great deal at the Ophel wall (2Ch 27:3). Manasseh must therefore only have strengthened it, and increased its height. On the words שׂ ויּשׂם cf. 2Ch 32:6 and 2Ch 17:2.

Verses 15-17

And he also removed the idols and the statues from the house of the Lord, i.e., out of the two courts of the temple (2Ch 33:5), and caused the idolatrous altars which he had built upon the temple hill and in Jerusalem to be cast forth from the city. In 2Ch 33:16, instead of the Keth. ויבן, he built (restored) the altar of Jahve, many manuscripts and ancient editions read ויכן, he prepared the altar of Jahve. This variation has perhaps originated in an orthographical error, and it is difficult to decide which reading is the original. The Vulg. translates יבן restauravit. That Manasseh first removed the altar of Jahve from the court, and then restored it, as Ewald thinks, is not very probable; for in that case its removal would certainly have been mentioned in 2Ch 33:3. Upon the altar thus restored Manasseh then offered thank-offerings and peace-offerings, and also commanded his subjects to worship Jahve the God of Israel. But the people still sacrificed on the high places, yet unto Jahve their God. “As to the carrying away of Manasseh,” says Bertheau, “we have no further information in the Old Testament, which is not surprising, seeing that in the books of Kings there is only a very short notice as to the long period embraced by Manasseh's reign and that of Amon.” He therefore, with Ew., Mov., Then., and others, does not scruple to recognise this fact as historical, and to place his captivity in the time of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon. He however believes, with Ew. and Mov., that the statements as to the removal of idols and altars from the temple and Jerusalem (2Ch 33:15) is inconsistent with the older account in 2Ki 23:6 and 2Ki 23:12, the clear statements of which, moreover, our historian does not communicate in 2Ch 34:3. For even if the Astarte removed by Josiah need not have been the הסּמל of our chapter, yet it is expressly said that only by Josiah were the altars built by Manasseh broken down; yet we would scarcely be justified in supposing that Manasseh removed them, perhaps only laid them aside, that Amon again set them up in the courts, and that Josiah at length destroyed them. It does not thence follow, of course, that the narrative of the repentance and conversion of Manasseh rests upon no historic foundation; rather it is just such a narrative as would be supplemented by accounts of the destruction of the idolatrous altars and the statue of Astarte: for that might be regarded as the necessary result of the conversion, without any definite statement being made.<ref> From this supposed contradiction, R. H. Graf, “die Gefangenschaft u. Bekehrung Manasse's, 2 Chron 33,” in the Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1859, iii. S. 467ff., and in the book, die geschichtl. Literatur A. Test. 1866, 2 Abhdl., following Gramberg, and with the concurrence of H. Nöldeke, die alttestl. Literatur in einer Reihe von Aufsätzen dargestellt (1868), S. 59f., has drawn the conclusion that the accounts given in the Chronicle, not only of Manasseh's conversion, but also of his being led captive to Babylon, are merely fictions, or inventions - poetical popular myths. On the other hand, E. Gerlach, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1861, iii. S. 503ff., has shown the superficiality of Graf's essay, and defended effectively the historical character of both narratives.</ref>
Against this we have the following objections to make: Can we well imagine repentance and conversion on Manasseh's part without the removal of the abominations of idolatry, at least from the temple of the Lord? And why should we not suppose that Manasseh removed the idol altars from the temple and Jerusalem, but that Amon, who did evil as did his father Manasseh, and sacrificed to all the images which he had made (2Ki 21:21.; 2Ch 33:22), again set them up in the courts of the temple, and placed the statue again in the temple, and that only by Josiah were they destroyed? In 2Ki 23:6 it is indeed said, Josiah removed the Asherah from the house of Jahve, took it forth from Jerusalem, and burnt it, and ground it to dust in the valley of Kidron; and in 2Ch 33:12, that Josiah beat down and brake the altars which Manasseh had made in both courts of the house of Jahve, and threw the dust of them into Kidron. But where do we find it written in the Chronicle that Manasseh, after his return from Babylon, beat down, and brake, and ground to powder the סמל in the house of Jahve, and the altars on the temple mount and in Jerusalem? In 2Ch 33:15 we only find it stated that he cast these things forth from the city (לעיר חוּצה ישׁלך). Is casting out of the city identical with breaking down and crushing, as Bertheau and others assume? The author of the Chronicle, at least, can distinguish between removing (הסיר) and breaking down and crushing. Cf. 2Ch 15:16, where הסיר is sharply distinguished from כּרת and הדק; further, 2Ch 31:1 and 2Ch 34:4, where the verbs שׁבּר, גּדּע, and הדק are used of the breaking in pieces and destroying of images and altars by Hezekiah and Josiah. He uses none of these verbs of the removal of the images and altars by Manasseh, but only ויסר and לעיר חוּצה וישׁלך (2Ch 33:15). If we take the words exactly as they stand in the text of the Bible, every appearance of contradiction disappears.^[15]
From what is said in the Chronicle of Manasseh's deeds, we cannot conclude that he was fully converted to the Lord. That Manasseh prayed to Jahve in his imprisonment, and by his deliverance from it and his restoration to Jerusalem came to see that Jahve was God (האלהים), who must be worshipped in His temple at Jerusalem, and that he consequently removed the images and the idolatrous altars from the temple and the city, and cast them forth-these facts do not prove a thorough conversion, much less “that he made amends for his sin by repentance and improvement” (Mov.), but merely attest the restoration of the Jahve-worship in the temple, which had previously been completely suspended. But the idolatry in Jerusalem and Judah was not thereby extirpated; it was only in so far repressed that it could not longer be publicly practised in the temple. Still less was idolatry rooted out of the hearts of the people by the command that the people were to worship Jahve, the God of Israel. There is not a single word of Manasseh's conversion to Jahve, the God of the fathers, with all his heart (שׁלם בּלב). Can it then surprise us, that after Manasseh's death, under his son Amon, walking as he did in the sins of his father, these external barriers fell straightway, and idolatry again publicly appeared in all its proportions and extent, and that the images and altars of the idols which had been cast out of Jerusalem were again set up in the temple and its courts? If even the pious Josiah, with all his efforts for the extirpation of idolatry and the revivification of the legal worship, could not accomplish more than the restoration, during his reign, of the temple service according to the law, while after his death idolatry again prevailed under Jehoiakim, what could Manasseh's half-measures effect? If this be the true state of the case in regard to Manasseh's conversion, the passages 2Ki 24:3; 2Ki 23:26; Jer 15:4, where it is said that the Lord had cast out Judah from His presence because of the sins of Manasseh, cease to give any support to the opposite view. Manasseh is here named as the person who by his godlessness made the punishment of Judah and Jerusalem unavoidable, because he so corrupted Judah by his sins, that it could not now thoroughly turn to the Lord, but always fell back into the sins of Manasseh. Similarly, in 2Ki 17:21 and 2Ki 17:22, it is said of the ten tribes that the Lord cast them out from His presence because they walked in all the sins of Jeroboam, and departed not from them.
With the removal of the supposed inconsistency between the statement in the Chronicle as to Manasseh's change of sentiment, and the account of his godlessness in 2 Kings 21, every reason for suspecting the account of Manasseh's removal to Babylon as a prisoner disappears; for even Graf admits that the mere silence of the book of Kings can prove nothing, since the books of Kings do not record many other events which are recorded in the Chronicle and are proved to be historical. This statement, however, is thoroughly confirmed, both by its own contents and by its connection with other well-attested historical facts. According to 2Ch 33:14, Manasseh fortified Jerusalem still more strongly after his return to the throne by building a new wall. This statement, which has as yet been called in question by no judicious critic, is so intimately connected with the statements in the Chronicle as to his being taken prisoner, and the removal of the images from the temple, that by it these latter are attested as historical. From this we learn that the author of the Chronicle had at his command authorities which contained more information as to Manasseh's reign than is to be found in our books of Kings, and so the references to these special authorities which follow in 2Ch 33:18, 2Ch 33:19 are corroborated. Moreover, the fortifying of Jerusalem after his return from his imprisonment presupposes that he had had such an experience as impelled him to take measures to secure himself against a repetition of hostile surprises. To this we must add the statement that Manasseh was led away by the generals of the Assyrian king to Babylon. The Assyrian kings Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser (or Sargon) did not carry away the Israelites to Babylon, but to Assyria; and the arrival of ambassadors from the Babylonian king Merodach-Baladan in Jerusalem, in the time of Hezekiah (2Ki 20:12; Isa 39:1), shows that at that time Babylon was independent of Assyria. The poetic popular legend would without doubt have made Manasseh also to be carried away to Assyria by the troops of the Assyrian king, not to Babylon. The statement that he was carried away to Babylon by Assyrian warriors rests upon the certainty that Babylon was then a province of the Assyrian empire; and this is corroborated by history. According to the accounts of Abydenus and Alexander Polyhistor, borrowed from Berosus, which have been preserved in Euseb. Chr. arm. i. p. 42f., Sennacherib brought Babylon, the government of which had been usurped by Belibus, again into subjection, and made his son Esarhaddon king over it, as his representative. The subjection of the Babylonians is confirmed by the Assyrian monuments, which state that Sennacherib had to march against the rebels in Babylon at the very beginning of his reign; and then again, in the fourth year of it, that he subdued them, and set over them a new viceroy (see M. Duncker, Gesch. des Alterth. i. S. 697f. and 707f. and ii. S. 592f., der 3 Aufl.). Afterwards, when Sennacherib met his death at the hand of his sons (2Ki 19:37; Isa 37:38), his oldest son Esarhaddon, the viceroy of Babylon, advanced with his army, pursued the flying parricides, and after slaying them ascended the throne of Assyria, 680 b.c.^[16]
Of Esarhaddon, who reigned thirteen years (from 680 to 667), we learn from Ezr 4:2, col. with 2Ki 24:17, that he brought colonists to Samaria from Babylon, Cutha, and other districts of his kingdom; and Abydenus relates of him, according to Berosus (in Euseb. Chron. i. p. 54), that Axerdis (i.e., without doubt Esarhaddon) subdued Lower Syria, i.e., the districts of Syria bordering on the sea, to himself anew. From these we may, I think, conclude that not only the transporting of the colonists into the depopulated kingdom of the ten tribes is connected with this expedition against Syria, but that on this occasion also Assyrian generals took King Manasseh prisoner, and carried him away to Babylon, as Ewald (Gesch. iii. S. 678), and Duncker, S. 715, with older chronologists and expositors (Usher, des Vignoles, Calmet, Ramb., J. D. Mich., and others), suppose. The transport of Babylonian colonists to Samaria is said in Seder Olam rab. p. 67, ed. Meyer, and by D. Kimchi, according to Talmudic tradition, to have taken place in the twenty-second year of Manasseh's reign; and this statement gains confirmation from the fact - as was remarked by Jac. Cappell. and Usher - that the period of sixty-five years after which, according to the prophecy in Isa 7:8, Ephraim was to be destroyed so that it should no more be a people, came to an end with the twenty-second year of Manasseh, and Ephraim, i.e., Israel of the ten tribes, did indeed cease to be a people only with the immigration of heathen colonists into its land (cf. Del. on Isa 7:8). But the twenty-second year of Manasseh corresponds to the year 776 b.c. and the fourth year of Esarhaddon.
By this agreement with extra-biblical narratives in its statement of facts and in its chronology, the narrative in the Chronicle of Manasseh's captivity in Babylon is raised above every doubt, and is corroborated even by the Assyrian monuments. “We now know,” remarks Duncker (ii. S. 92) in this connection, “that Esarhaddon says in his inscriptions that twenty-two kings of Syria hearkened to him: he numbers among them Minasi (Manasseh of Judah) and the kings of Cyprus.” As to the details both of his capture and his liberation, we cannot make even probable conjectures, since we have only a few bare notices of Esarhaddon's reign; and even his building works, which might have given us some further information, were under the influence of a peculiarly unlucky star, for the palace built by him at Kalah or Nimrod remained unfinished, and was then destroyed by a great fire (cf. Spiegel in Herz.'s Realencykl. xx. S. 225). Yet, from the fact that in 2Ch 33:1, as in 2Ki 21:1, the duration of Manasseh's reign is stated to have been fifty-five years, without any mention being made of an interruption, we may probably draw this conclusion at least, that the captivity did not last long, and that he received his liberty upon a promise to pay tribute, although he appears not to have kept this promise, or only for a short period. For that, in the period between Hezekiah and Josiah, Judah must have come into a certain position of dependence upon Assyria, cannot be concluded from 2Ki 23:19 (cf. 2Ch 33:15 with 17:28) and 2 Chr 23:29, as E. Gerlach thinks.

Verses 18-19

Conclusion of Manasseh's history. His other acts, his prayer, and words of the prophets of the Lord against him, were recorded in the history of the kings of Israel; while special accounts of his prayer, and how it was heard (העתר־לו, the letting Himself be entreated, i.e., how God heard him), of his sons, and the high places, altars, and images which he erected before his humiliation, were contained in the sayings of Hozai (see the Introduction).

Verse 20

Manasseh was buried in his house, or, according to the more exact statement in 2Ki 21:18, in the garden of his house - in the garden of Uzza; see on that passage.

Verses 21-25

2Ch 33:21-25The reign of Amon. Cf. 2Ki 21:19-26. - Both accounts agree; only in the Chronicle, as is also the case with Manasseh and Ahaz, the name of his mother is omitted, and the description of his godless deeds is somewhat more brief than in Kings, while the remark is added that he did not humble himself like Manasseh, but increased the guilt. In the account of his death there is nothing said of his funeral, nor is there any reference to the sources of his history. See the commentary on 2Ki 21:19.

Chap. 34

Verses 1-2

Reign of Josiah - 2 Chronicles 34-35

The account of Josiah in the Chronicle agrees in all essential points with the representation in 2 Kings 22 and 23, but is chronologically more exact, and in many parts more complete than that. In the second book of Kings, the whole reform of the cultus carried out by Josiah is viewed in its connection with the discovery of the book of the law, on the occasion of the temple being repaired; and the narrative comprehends not only the repair of the temple, the discovery, the reading of the book of the law before the assembled people, and the renewal of the covenant, but also the extirpation of idolatry in Jerusalem and Judah and in all the cities of Israel, and the celebration of the passover in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign; see the introductory remarks to 2 Kings 22. In the Chronicle, on the contrary, these events are more kept apart, and described according to their order in time. As early as in the eighth year of his reign, Josiah, still a youth, began to seek the God of his ancestor David, and in his twelfth year to purge Jerusalem and Judah of idolatry (2Ch 34:3). In the eighteenth year the book of the law was discovered in the temple, brought to the king, and read before him (2Ch 34:8-18); whereupon he, deeply moved by the contents of the book which had been read, and by the answer of the prophetess Huldah when inquired of concerning it (2Ch 34:19-28), went into the temple with the elders of the people, caused the law to be read to the whole people, and made a covenant before the Lord to obey the law (2Ch 34:29-32). He then caused all the idolatrous abominations which were still to be found in the land of Israel to be removed (2Ch 34:33), and prepared to hold the passover, as it had not been held since the days of Solomon (2 Chron 35:1-19). In other respects the main difference between the two accounts is, that in 2 Kings the suppression of idolatry is narrated with greater minuteness; the passover, on the contrary, being only briefly noticed; - while in the Chronicle the purification of Jerusalem, Judah, and the kingdom of Israel is shortly summarized (2Ch 34:3-7), but the celebration of the passover is minutely described on its ceremonial side (2 Chron 35:1-19).
2Ch 34:1-2Duration and spirit of Josiah's reign; agreeing with 2Ki 22:1, 2Ki 22:2, only the note as to Josiah's mother being here omitted.

Verses 3-4

2Ch 34:3-4Extirpation of idolatry. In the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet a youth, being then only sixteen years old, Josiah began to seek the God of his ancestor David, and in the twelfth year of his reign he commenced to purify Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, Asherim, etc. The cleansing of the land of Judah from the numerous objects of idolatry is summarily described in 2Ch 34:4 and 2Ch 34:5; and thereupon there follows (2Ch 34:6 and 2Ch 34:7) the destruction of the idolatrous altars and images in the land of Israel, - all that it seemed necessary to say on that subject being thus mentioned at once. For that all this was not accomplished in the twelfth year is clear from the לטהר החל, “he commenced to cleanse,” and is moreover attested by 2Ch 34:33. The description of this destruction of the various objects of idolatry is rhetorically expressed, only carved and cast images being mentioned, besides the altars of the high places and the Asherim, without the enumeration of the different kings of idolatry which we find in 2 Kings 23:4-20. - On 2Ch 34:4, cf. 2Ch 31:1. ינתּציּ, they pulled down before him, i.e., under his eye, or his oversight, the altars of the Baals (these are the בּמות, 2Ch 34:3); and the sun-pillars (cf. 2Ch 14:4) which stood upwards, i.e., above, upon the altars, he caused to be hewn away from them (מעליהם); the Asherim (pillars and trees of Asherah) and the carved and molten images to be broken and ground (הדק, cf. 2Ch 15:16), and (the dust of them) to be strewn upon the graves (of those) who had sacrificed to them. הזּבחים is connected directly with הקּברים, so that the actions of those buried in them are poetically attributed to the graves. In 2Ki 23:6 this is said only of the ashes of the Asherah statue which was burnt, while here it is rhetorically generalized.

Verse 5

And he burnt the bones of the priests upon their altars, i.e., he caused the bones of the idolatrous priests to be taken from their graves and burnt on the spot where the destroyed altars had stood, that he might defile the place with the ashes of the dead. In these words is summarized what is stated in 2Ki 23:13 and 2Ki 23:14 as to the defilement of the places of sacrifice built upon the Mount of Olives by the bones of the dead, and in 2Ki 23:16-20 as to the burning of the bones of the high priests of Bethel, after they had been taken from their graves, upon their own altars. מזבחותים is an orthographical error for מזבּחותם.

Verses 6-7

2Ch 34:6-7 2Ch 34:6 and 2Ch 34:7 form a connected sentence: And in the cities of Manasseh ..., in their ruins round about, there he pulled down the altars, etc. The tribe of Simeon is here, as in 2Ch 15:9, reckoned among the tribes of the kingdom of Israel, because the Simeonites, although they belonged geographically to the kingdom of Judah, yet in religion remained attached to the worship on the high places practised by the ten tribes; see on 2Ch 15:9. “And unto Naphtali” is added, to designate the kingdom of Israel in its whole extent to the northern frontier of Canaan. The form בתיהם בּחר (in the Keth. divided into two words) gives no suitable sense. R. Sal. explains, timentes in planitie habitare, sed fixerunt in monte domicilia, rendering it “in their mountain-dwellings.” This the words cannot mean.^[17]
The Keri בּחרבתיהם, “with their swords,” is suggested by Eze 26:9, and is accepted by D. Kimchi, Abu Melech, and others, and understood to denote instruments with which the altars, groves, and images were cut down. But this interpretation also is certainly incorrect. The word is rather to be pointed בּחרבתיהם, in their wastes (ruins) (cf. Psa 109:10), and to be taken as an explanatory apposition to בּערי: in the cities of Manasseh ..., namely, in their ruins round about; for the land had been deserted since the times of Shalmaneser, and its cities were in great part in ruins. The statement as to the locality precedes in the form of an absolute sentence, and that which is predicated of it follows in the form of an apodosis with ו consec. (וינתּץ). להדק כּתּת, he dashed to pieces to crush; the form הדק is not a perfect after ל, but an infinitive which has retained the vowel of the perfect; cf. Ew. §238, d.

Verse 8

2Ch 34:8The cleansing and repairing of the temple, and the finding of the book of the law. Cf. 2Ki 22:3-10. - In the eighteenth year of his reign, when he was purging the land and the house (of God), he sent. לטהר does not indeed signify “after the purging” (De Wette, with the older expositors), but still less is it a statement of the object, “to purge” (Berth.); for that is decisively disposed of both by its position at the beginning of the sentence, where no statement of the object would stand, but still more by the fact that a statement of the object follows, וגו לחזּק.   ל used of time denotes “about,” and so with the inf., e.g., Jer 46:13 : at (his) coming = when he came. Shaphan was סופר, state secretary, according to 2Ki 22:3. With him the king sent the governor of the city Maaseiah, and the chancellor Joah. These two are not mentioned in 2Ki 22:3, but have not been arbitrarily added by the chronicler, or invented by him, as Then. groundlessly supposes. “To repair the house of Jahve.” What these high royal officials had to do with it we learn from what follows.

Verses 9-12

They, together with the high priest, gave the money which had been received for the repair of the temple to the overseers of the building, who then gave it to workmen to procure building materials and for wages, just as was done when the temple was repaired by Joash, 2Ch 24:11-13. The Keri ויּשׁבוּ is a correction resulting from a misinterpretation of the Keth. וישׁבי, “and of the dwellers in Jerusalem.” The enumeration, “from the hand of Manasseh, Ephraim,” etc., is rhetorical. In ויּתּנוּ, 2Ch 34:10, the verb of 2Ch 34:9 is again taken up: they handed it to the overseers of the building, and they to the workmen. הם עשׂה is a rare form of the plur. עשׁי; see on 1Ch 23:24. The overseers of the building (המפקדים - עשׁי) are the subject of the second ויּתּנוּ; and before the following עשׂי ל, which stands in 2 Kings, is to be supplied. בדוק is a denom. from בּדק, and signifies to repair what has been damaged. The statement of 2Ch 34:10 is made more definite by 2Ch 34:11 : they gave it, namely, to the workers in stone and wood, and to the builders to buy hewn stones and timber for couplings, and for the beams of the houses (לקרות, to provide with beams; הבּתים are the various buildings of the temple and its courts), which the kings of Judah had allowed to decay (השׁחית, not of designed destroying, but of ruining by neglect). - In 2Ch 34:12 we have still the remark that the people did the work with fidelity, and the money could consequently be given to them without reckoning, cf. 2Ki 22:7; and then the names of the building inspectors follow. Two Levites of the family of Merari, and two of the family of Kohath, were overseers; לנצּח, i.e., to lead in the building, to preside over it as upper overseers; and besides them, the Levites, all who were skilled in instruments of song (cf. 1Ch 25:6.). As men who by their office and their art occupied a conspicuous place among the Levites, the oversight of the workmen in the temple was committed to them, not “that they might incite and cheer the workmen by music and song” (Berth.).

Verse 13

2Ch 34:13 2Ch 34:13 is probably to be taken, along with 2Ch 34:12, in the signification, “All the Levites who were skilled in music were over the bearers of burdens, and were overseers of all the workmen in reference to every work.” The ו before הס על appears certainly to go against this interpretation, and Berth. would consequently erase it to connect הסּבּלים על with the preceding verse, and begin a new sentence with וּמנצּחים: “and they led all the workmen.” But if we separate וּמנצּחים from הסּבּלים על, this mention of the bearers of burdens (סבלים) comes awkwardly in between the subject and the predicate, or the statement as to the subject. We hold the text to be correct, and make the w before הס על correspond to the ו before מנצחים, in the signification, et - et. The Levites, all who were skilled in instruments of song, were both over the bearers of burdens, and overseeing the workmen, or leading the workmen. Besides, of the Levites were, i.e., still other Levites were, scribes and officers and porters, i.e., were busied about the temple in the discharge of these functions.

Verses 14-18

In bringing out the money that had been brought into the house of the Lord, the high priest found the book of Moses' law. It is not clearly implied in the words, that he found it in the place where the money was laid up. The book of the law which was found is merely characterized as the book of the Mosaic law by the words בּיד־משׁה, not necessarily as Moses' autograph. The communication of this discovery by the high priest to the state secretary Shaphan, and by him to the king, is narrated in 2Ch 34:15-18, just as in 2Ki 22:8-10. The statement, 2Ch 34:16, “And Shaphan brought the book to the king,” instead of the words, “and Shaphan the ספר came (went) to the king,” involves no difference as to the facts; it rather makes the matter clear. For since in 2Ki 22:10, immediately after the statement that Hilkiah gave him the book, it is said that Shaphan read from it to the king, he must have brought it to the king. With this elucidation, both the omission of ויּקראהוּ   (2Ki 22:8), and the insertion of עוד after ויּשׁב, 2Ch 34:16, is connected. The main thing, that which it concerned the author of the Chronicle to notice, was the fact that the book of the law which had been discovered was immediately brought and read to the king; while the circumstance that Shaphan, when the book was given him, also opened it and read in it, is omitted, as it had no further results. But since Shaphan did not go to the king merely to bring him the book, but rather, in the first place, to report upon the performance of the commission entrusted to him in respect of the money, this report required to be brought prominently forward by the עוד: He brought the book to the king, and besides, made his report to the king. All that has been committed to thy servants (בּיד נתן), that they do; they have poured out the money, etc. The עבדים are not Shaphan and the others mentioned in 2Ch 34:8, but in general those who were entrusted with the oversight of the repair of the temple, among whom, indeed, the chief royal officials were not included. After this report there follows in 2Ch 34:18 an account of the book which Shaphan had brought, and which, as we were informed in 2Ch 34:16, in anticipation of the event, he gave to the king.

Verses 19-28

2Ch 34:19-28The dismay of the king at the contents of the book which was read to him, and his inquiry of the prophetess Huldah as to the judgments threatened in the law. - Compare with this the parallel account in 2Ki 22:11-20, with the commentary there given, as both accounts agree with the exception of some unimportant variations in expression. Instead of Abdon ben Micah (2Ch 34:20) we find in 2 Kings Achbor ben Micayahu, perhaps the correct reading. In 2Ch 34:21, the expression, “and for those that are left in Israel and Judah,” i.e., for the remainder of the people who were left in Israel after the destruction of the kingdom, and in Judah after the divine chastisements inflicted, mainly by the Assyrians under Hezekiah and Manasseh, is clearer and more significant than that in 2Ki 22:13, “and for the people, and for all Judah.” נתּכה, to pour itself forth (of anger), is quite as suitable as נצּתה, inflame, kindle itself, in 2Ki 22:13. In 2Ch 34:22, those sent with the high priest Hilkiah are briefly designated by the words המּלך ואשׁר, and whom the king, scil. had sent; in 2Ki 22:14, on the contrary, the individual names are recorded (Ewald, Gramm. §292, b, would supply אמר, after the lxx). The names of the ancestors of the prophetess Huldah also are somewhat different. כּזאת, as the king had said to him, is omitted in 2 Kings. - In 2Ch 34:24, כּל־האלות, all the curses, is more significant than כּל־דּברי,   2Ki 22:16. ותּתּך (2Ch 34:25) is a statement of the result of the עזבוּני: Because they have forsaken me, my anger pours itself forth. In 2Ch 34:27, the rhetorical expansion of the words which God had spoken of Jerusalem in the law, וגו לשׁמּה להיות, inserted in 2Ki 22:19 as an elucidation, are omitted. After the preceding designation of these words as “the curses written in the law,” any further elucidation was superfluous. On the contents of the saying of the prophetess Huldah, see the commentary on 2Ki 22:16.

Verses 29-32

2Ch 34:29-32The reading of the book of the law in the temple, and the solemn renewal of the covenant, to which the king assembled the elders of Judah and Jerusalem, with all the people, after the saying of the prophetess Huldah had been reported to him, are recorded in 2Ki 23:1-3 as they are in the Chronicle, and have been commented upon at the former passage. Only 2Ch 34:32, the contents of which correspond to the words, “And the whole people entered into the covenant” (2Ki 23:3), will need explanation. ויּעמד is usually translated, “he caused the people to enter into the covenant” (after 2 Kings). This is in substance correct, but exegetically cannot be defended, since בּבּרית does not precede, so as to allow of its here being supplied from the context. ויּעמד only signifies, he caused all who were in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand, and they did according to the covenant of God; whence we can easily supply in the first clause, “and to do according to the covenant.” The collocation, “in Jerusalem and in Benjamin,” is an abbreviation of the complete formula, “in Jerusalem and Judah and Benjamin;” then in the following clause only the inhabitants of Jerusalem are named as representatives of the inhabitants of the whole kingdom.

Verse 33

But not only his own subjects did Josiah induce to act towards God in accordance with the covenant; in all the districts of the sons of Israel he removed the idolatrous abominations, and compelled every one in Israel to serve Jahve. The “sons of Israel,” as distinguished from the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Benjamin (2Ch 34:32), are the remnant of the ten tribes in their land, where Josiah, according to 2Ch 34:6., had also destroyed the idolatrous places of worship and the images. The statement in our verse, with which the account of Josiah's cultus reform is concluded, refers to that. לעבד ויּעבד, he made to serve, compelled them to serve. By the abolition of idolatry he compelled them to worship Jahve. The last words of the verse are accordingly to be interpreted as signifying that Josiah, so long as he lived, allowed no open idolatry, but externally maintained the worship of Jahve. These measures could not effect a real, heartfelt conversion to God, and so the people fell again into open idolatry immediately after Josiah's death; and Jeremiah continually complains of the defection and corruption of Judah and Israel: cf. 2Ch 11:1, 2Ch 13:1, 2Ch 25:1, etc.The solemnization of the passover. - To ratify the renewal of the covenant, and to confirm the people in the communion with the Lord into which it had entered by the making of the covenant, Josiah, immediately after the finding of the book of the law and the renewal of the covenant, appointed a solemn passover to be held at the legal time, which is only briefly mentioned in 2Ki 23:21-23, but in the Chronicle is minutely described.

Chap. 35

Verse 1

2Ch 35:1 2Ch 35:1 contains the superscription-like statement, that Josiah held a passover to the Lord; and they held the passover in the 14th day of the first month, consequently at the time fixed in the law. It happened otherwise under Hezekiah (2Ch 30:2, 2Ch 30:13, and 2Ch 30:15). With 2Ch 35:2 commences the description of the festival: and first we have the preparations, the appointment of the priests and Levites to perform the various services connected with the festival (2Ch 35:2-6), and the procuring of the necessary beasts for sacrifice (2Ch 35:10-15); then the offering of the sacrifices and the preparation of the meals (2Ch 35:10-15); and finally the characterization of the whole festival (2Ch 35:16-19).

Verse 2

He appointed the priests according to their guards or posts, i.e., according to the service incumbent upon each division, and “he strengthened them for the service of the house of Jahve,” namely, by encouraging speech, and by teaching as to the duties devolving upon them, according to the provisions of the law. Cf. the summons of Hezekiah, 2Ch 29:5.; and as to the יחזּק, Neh 2:18.

Verses 3-4

The Levites are designated “those teaching all Israel, those holy to the Lord,” in reference to what is commanded them in the succeeding verses. The Keth. מבונים does not elsewhere occur, and must be regarded as a substantive: the teachers; but it is probably only an orthographical error for מבינים (Neh 8:7), as the Keri demands here also. As to the fact, cf. 2Ch 17:8. The Levites had to teach the people in the law. Josiah said to them, “Set the ark in the house which Solomon did build; not is to you to bear upon the shoulder;” i.e., ye have not any longer to bear it on your shoulders, as formerly on the journey through the wilderness, and indeed till the building of the temple, when the ark and the tabernacle had not yet any fixed resting-place (1Ch 17:5). The summons וגו את־ערון וּ תּן is variously interpreted. Several Rabbins regard it as a command to remove the ark from its place in the most holy place into some subterranean chamber of the temple, so as to secure its safety in the event of the threatened destruction of the temple taking place. But this hypothesis needs no refutation, since it in no way corresponds to the words used. Most ancient and modern commentators, on the other hand, suppose that the holy ark had, during the reigns of the godless Manasseh and Amon, either been removed by them from its place, or taken away from the most holy place, from a desire to protect it from profanation, and hidden somewhere; and that Josiah calls upon the Levites to bring it back again to its place. Certainly this idea is favoured by the circumstance that, just as the book of the law, which should have been preserved in the ark of the covenant, had been lost, and was only recovered when the temple was being repaired, so the ark also may have been removed from its place. But even in that case the sacred ark would have been brought back to its place, according to the law, at the completion of the purification of the temple, before the king and people made the covenant with Jahve, after the law had been read to them in the temple, and could not have remained in its hiding-place until the passover. Still less probable is Bertheau's conjecture, “that the Levites bore the just reconsecrated ark upon their shoulders at the celebration of the passover, under the idea that they were bound by the law to do so; but Josiah taught them that the temple built by Solomon had caused an alteration in that respect. They were no longer bearers of the ark; they might set it in its place, and undertake other duties.” For the idea that the Levites bore the ark at the celebration of the passover is utterly inconsistent with the context, since 2Ch 35:3-6 do not treat of what was done at the passover, but merely of that which was to be done. But even if we were to alter “they bare” into “they wished to bear,” yet there is no historic ground for the idea attributed by Bertheau to the Levites, that at the celebration of the passover the ark was to be brought forth from the most holy place, and carried in procession in the temple courts or elsewhere. Finally, the reasons stated for the call, וגו תּנוּ, cannot be made to harmonize with the two views above mentioned. If it was only the bringing back of the ark to its ancient place in the most holy place which is here spoken of, why are the words “which Solomon built” added after בּבּית; and why is the command based upon the statement, “Ye have not to carry it any more upon your shoulders, but are to serve the Lord your God and His people in another way”? Both the additional clause and these reasons for the command show clearly that Josiah, in the words וגו תּנוּ, did not command something which they were to do at the approaching passover, but merely introduces therewith the summons: “Serve now the Lord,” etc. R. Sal. saw this, and has given the sense of the verse thus: quum non occupemini amplius ullo labore vasa sacra portandi, Deo servite et populo ejus mactando et excoriando agnos paschales v. 4ff. It therefore only remains to ascertain how this signification is consistent with the words בּבּית הק את־ארון תּנוּ. The exhortation, “Set the ark in the house,” must certainly not be understood to mean, “Leave it in the place where it has hitherto stood,” nor, “Bring the sacred ark back into the house;” for נתן with בּ does not mean to bring back, but only to place anywhere, set; and is here used not of material placing, but of mental. “Set the ark in the house” is equivalent to, “Overlook, leave it in the temple; you have not any longer, since Solomon built a house for it, to bear it upon your shoulders;” i.e., Think not on that which formerly, before the building of the temple, belonged to your service, but serve the Lord and His people now in the manner described in 2Ch 35:4. The interpretation of the words as denoting a material setting or removing of the ark, is completely excluded by the facts, (1) that in the description of what the Levites did at the passover, “according to the command of the king,” which follows (2Ch 35:10-15), not a word is said of the ark; and (2) that the bearing of the ark into the most holy place was not the duty of the Levites, but of the priests. The duty of the Levites was merely to bear the ark when it had to be transported for great distances, after the priests had previously wrapped it up in the prescribed manner. In 2Ch 35:4-6 the matters in which they are to serve the Lord in the preparation of the passover are more fully stated. The Keth. הכונו is imper. Niphal, הכּונוּ, Make yourselves ready according to your fathers'-houses, in your divisions, according to the writing of David. בּ in בּכתב, as in בּמצות,   2Ch 29:25; but כּתב does not = מצות, but is to be understood of writings, in which the arrangements made by David and Solomon in reference to the service of the Levites were recorded.

Verse 5

2Ch 35:5 “Stand in the sanctuary for the divisions of the fathers'-houses of your brethren, the people of the nation, and indeed a part of a father's-house of the Levites;” i.e., Serve your brethren the laymen, according to their fathers'-houses, in the court of the temple, in such fashion that a division of the Levites shall fall to each father's-house of the laymen; cf. 2Ch 35:12. So Bertheau correctly; but he would erase the ו before הלקּת without sufficient reason. Older commentators have supplied the preposition ל before הלקּת: Stand, according to the divisions of the fathers'-houses, and according to the division of a father's-house of the Levites; which gives the same sense, but can hardly be justified grammatically.

Verse 6

Kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare it (the passover) for your brethren (the laymen), doing according to the word of the Lord by Moses (i.e., according to the law of Moses). The sanctification mentioned between the killing and the preparation of the passover probably consisted only in this, that the Levites, after they had slain the lamb, had to wash themselves before they gave the blood to the priest to sprinkle upon the altar (cf. 2Ch 35:11 and 2Ch 30:16). As to the slaying of the lamb by the Levites, cf. the remarks on 2Ch 30:16.

Verses 7-9

The bestowal of beasts for sacrifice on the part of the king and his princes. - 2Ch 35:7. The king gave (ירם as in 2Ch 30:24) to the sons of the people small cattle, viz., lambs and young goats, all for the passover-offerings, for all that were present, to the number of 30,000 (head), and 3000 bullocks from the possession of the king (cf. 2Ch 31:3; 2Ch 32:29). כּל־הנּמצא is all the people who were present, who had come to the feast from Jerusalem and the rest of Judah without having brought lambs for sacrifice.

Verses 8-9

And his princes (the king's princes, i.e., the princes of the kingdom) presented for a free-will offering to the people, the priests, and the Levites. לנדבה is not to be taken adverbially, as Berth. thinks: according to goodwill, but corresponds to the לפּסחים, i.e., for free-will offerings, Lev 7:16. The number of these gifts is not stated. From the princes of the king we must distinguish the prefects of the house of God and the princes of the Levites, who are mentioned by name in 2Ch 35:8, 2Ch 35:9. Of these the first presented sheep and cattle for passover-sacrifices to the priests, the latter to the Levites. Of the three נגידים of the house of God named in 2Ch 35:8, Hilkiah is the high priest (2Ch 34:9), Zechariah perhaps the next to him (משׁנה כּהן, 2Ki 25:18; Jer 52:24), and Jehiel is probably, as Berth. conjectures, the chief of the line of Ithamar, which continued to exist even after the exile (Ezr 8:2). Of the Levite princes (2Ch 35:9) six names are mentioned, three of which, Conaniah, Shemaiah, and Jozabad, are met with under Hezekiah in 2Ch 31:12-15, since in the priestly and Levitic families the same names recur in different generations. The Conaniah in Hezekiah's time was chief overseer of the temple revenues; the two others were under overseers. Besides the פּסהים for which the king and the princes of the priests and of the Levites gave צאן, i.e., lambs and young goats, בּקר, oxen, in considerable numbers, are mentioned as presents; 3000 from the king, 300 from the princes of the priests, and 500 from the princes of the Levites. Nothing is said as to the purpose of these, but from 2Ch 35:13 we learn that the flesh of them was cooked in pots and caldrons, and consequently that they were intended for the sacrificial meals during the seven days of the Mazzoth-feast; see on 2Ch 35:12 and 2Ch 35:13.

Verses 10-15

The preparation of the paschal sacrifice and the paschal meals. - 2Ch 35:10 leads on to the carrying out of the arrangements. “So the service was prepared;” the preparation for the festival mentioned in 2Ch 35:3-9 was carried out. The priests stood at their posts (cf. 2Ch 30:16), and the Levites according to their courses, according to the command of the king (in 2Ch 35:4 and 2Ch 35:5).

Verse 11

And they (the Levites, cf. 2Ch 35:6) slew the passover (the lambs and young goats presented for the passover meal), and the priests sprinkled (the blood of the paschal lambs) from their hand (i.e., which the Levites gave them), while the Levites flayed them; as also under Hezekiah, 2Ch 30:17.

Verse 12

2Ch 35:12 “And they took away the burnt-offerings, to give them to the divisions of the fathers'-houses of the sons of the people, to offer unto the Lord, as it is written in the book of Moses; and so also in regard to the oxen.” הסיר signifies the taking off or separating of the pieces intended to be burnt upon the altar from the beasts slain for sacrifice, as in Lev 3:9., Lev 4:31. העלה, in this connection, can only signify the parts of the paschal lamb which were to be burnt upon the altar, viz., the same parts which were separated from sheep and goats when they were brought as thank-offerings and burnt upon the altar (Lev 3:6-16). These pieces are here called העלה, because they not only were wholly burnt like the burnt-offering, but also were burnt upon the flesh of the evening burnt-offering to God, for a savour of good pleasure; cf. Lev 3:11, Lev 3:16, with Lev 1:13. They cannot have been special burnt-offerings, which were burnt along with or at the same time with the fat of the paschal lambs; for there were no special festal burnt-offerings, besides the daily evening sacrifice, prescribed for the passover on the evening of the 14th Nisan; and the oxen given by the king and the princes for the passover are specially mentioned in the concluding clause of the verse, לבּקר וכן, so that they cannot have been included in העלה. The suffix in לתתּם might be referred to הפּסח: to give the paschal lambs, after the עלה had been separated from them, to the divisions of the people. But the following ליהוה להקריב does not harmonize with that interpretation; and the statement in 2Ch 35:13, that the Levites gave the roasted and boiled flesh to the sons of the people, is still more inconsistent with it. We must consequently refer לתתּם to the immediately preceding noun, העלה: to give the parts separated from the paschal lambs to be burnt upon the altar to the divisions of the people, that they might offer them to the Lord. This can only mean that each division of the fathers'-houses of the people approached the altar in turn to give the portions set apart from the עלה to the priests, who then offered them on the fire of the altar to the Lord. On בס כּכּתוּב Gusset. has already rightly remarked: Lex Mosis hic allegatur non quasi omnia illa quae praecedunt, exprimerentur in ipsa, sed respective seu respectu eorum quae mandata erant; quibus salvis adjungi potuerunt quidam modi agendi innocui et commodi ad legis jussa exsequenda. לבּקר וכן, and so was it done also with the oxen, which consequently were not offered as burnt-offerings, but as thank-offerings, only the fat being burnt upon the altar, and the flesh being used for sacrificial meals.

Verse 13

The passover, i.e., the flesh of the paschal lamb, they roasted (בּאשׁ בּשּׁל, to make ready upon the fire, i.e., roast; see on Exo 12:9), according to the ordinance (as the law appointed); and “the sanctified (as they called the slaughtered oxen, cf. 2Ch 29:33) they sod (שּׁלוּ, sc. במּים, cf. Exo 12:9) in pots, caldrons, and pans, and brought it speedily to the sons of the people,” i.e., the laymen. From this Bertheau draws the conclusion, “that with the paschal lambs the oxen were also offered as thank-offerings; and the sacrificial meal consisted not merely of the paschal lamb, but also of the flesh of the thank-offerings: for these must have been consumed on the same day as they were offered, though the eating of them on the following day was not strictly forbidden, Lev 7:15-18.” But this conclusion is shown to be incorrect even by this fact, that there is no word to hint that the roasting of the paschal lambs and the cooking of the flesh of the oxen which were offered as thank-offerings took place simultaneously on the evening of the 14th Nisan. This is implied neither in the לבּקר וכן, nor in the statement in 2Ch 35:14, that the priests were busied until night in offering the עלה and the חלבים. According to 2Ch 35:17, the Israelites held on that day, not only the passover, but also the Mazzoth-feast, seven days. The description of the offering and preparation of the sacrifices, partly for the altar and partly for the meal, 2Ch 35:13-15, refers, therefore, not only to the passover in its more restricted sense, but also to the seven days' Mazzoth festival, without its being expressly stated; because both from the law and from the practice it was sufficiently well known that at the פּסח meal only צאן (lambs or goats) were roasted and eaten; while on the seven following days of the Mazzoth, besides the daily burnt-offering, thank-offerings were brought and sacrificial meals were held; see on Deu 16:1-8. The connecting, or rather the mingling, of the sacrificial meal prepared from the roasted lambs with the eating of the sodden flesh of oxen, would have been too great an offence against the legal prescriptions for the paschal meal, to be attributed either to King Josiah, to the priesthood, or to the author of the Chronicle, since the latter expressly remarks that the celebration was carried out according to the prescription of the law of Moses, and according to the “right.”

Verses 14-15

And afterwards (אחר, postea, after the passover had been prepared for the laymen in the way described) the Levites prepared it for themselves and for the priests; for the latter, however, only because they were busied with the offering of the עלה and the חלבים till night. Most expositors understand by עלה the fat of the paschal lambs, which was burnt upon the altar, as in 2Ch 35:12; and חלבים, the fat of oxen, which was likewise burnt upon the altar, “but was not, as it seems, designated by the expression העלה” (Berth.). This interpretation certainly at first sight seems likely; only one cannot see why only the fat of the oxen, and not that of the paschal lambs also, should be called חלבים, since in the law the parts of all thank-offerings (oxen, sheep, and goats) which were burnt upon the altar are called חלבים. We will therefore be more correct if we take והחלבים to be a more exact definition of העלה: the burnt-offering, viz., the fat which was offered as a burnt-offering; or we may take העלה here to denote the evening burnt-offering, and החלבים the fat of the paschal lambs. But even if the first-mentioned interpretation were the only correct one, yet it could not thence be concluded that on the passover evening (the 14th Nisan) the fat not only of the 37,600 lambs and goats, but also of the 3800 oxen, were offered upon the altar; the words, that the priests were busied until night with the offering of the עלה and the חלבים, are rather used of the sacrificing generally during the whole of the seven days' festival. For the compressed character of the description appears in 2Ch 35:15, where it is remarked that neither the singers nor the porters needed to leave their posts, because their brethren the Levites prepared (the meal) for them. With the words, “according to the command of David,” etc., cf. 1Ch 25:1 and 1Ch 25:6.

Verses 16-19

The character of the passover and Mazzoth festivals. - 2Ch 35:16. “So all the service of the Lord was prepared the same day, in regard to the preparing of the passover, and the offering of the burnt-offerings upon the altar, according to the command of the king.” This statement, like that in 2Ch 35:10, summarizes all that precedes, and forms the transition to the concluding remarks on the whole festival. ההוּא בּיּום is not to be limited to the one afternoon and evening of the fourteenth day of the month, but refers to the whole time of the festival, just as יום in Gen 2:4 embraces the seven days of creation. “עלות are the עלה and the חלבים (2Ch 35:14)” (Berth.); but it by no means follows from that, that “at the passover, besides the regular burnt-offering (Num 28:4), no burnt-offering would seem to have been offered,” but rather that the words have a more general signification, and denote the sacrifices at the passover and Mazzoth festivals.

Verse 17

The duration of the festival. The Israelites who had come kept the passover “at that time (that is, according to 2Ch 35:1, on the fourteenth day of the first month), and the Mazzoth seven days,” i.e., from the 15th to the 21st of the same month.

Verses 18-19

2Ch 35:18-19 2Ch 35:18 contains the remark that the Israelites had not held such a passover since the days of the prophet Samuel and all the kings; cf. 2Ki 23:22, where, instead of the days of Samuel, the days of the judges are mentioned. On the points which distinguished this passover above others, see the remarks on 2Ki 23:22. In the concluding clause we have a rhetorical enumeration of those who participated in the festival, beginning with the king and ending with the inhabitants of Jerusalem. הנּמצא ישׂראל are the remnant of the kingdom of the ten tribes who had come to the festival; cf. 2Ch 34:33. - In 2Ch 35:19 the year of this passover is mentioned in conclusion. The statement, “in the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah,” refers back to the same date at the beginning of the account of the cultus reform (2Ch 34:8 and 2Ki 22:3), and indicates that Josiah's cultus reform culminated in this passover. Now since the passover fell in the middle of the first month of the year, and, according to 2 Chron 34 and 2 Kings 22, the book of the law was also found in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign, many commentators have imagined that the eighteenth year of the king is dated from the autumn; so that all that is narrated in 2 Chronicles, from 34:8-35:19, happened within a period of six months and a half. This might possibly be the case; since the purification and repair of the temple may have been near their completion when the book of the law was found, so that they might hold the passover six months afterwards. But our passage does not require that the years of the king's reign should be dated from the autumn, and there are not sufficient grounds for believing that such was the case. Neither in our narrative, nor in 2 Kings 22 and 23, is it said that the passover was resolved upon or arrange din consequence of the finding of the book of the law. Josiah may therefore have thought of closing and ratifying the restoration of the Jahve-worship by a solemn passover festival, even before the finding of the book; and the two events need not be widely separated from each other. But from the way in which the account in 2 Kings 22 and 23 is arranged, it is not improbable that the finding of the book of the law may have occurred before the beginning of the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign, and that date may have been placed at the beginning and end of the narrative, because the cultus reform was completed with the celebration of the passover in his eighteenth year.^[18]

Verse 20

2Ch 35:20The end of Josiah's reign; his death in battle against Pharaoh Necho. Cf. 2Ki 23:25-30. - The catastrophe in which the pious king found his death is in 2 Kings introduced by the remark, that although Josiah returned unto the Lord with all his heart and all his soul and all his strength, and walked altogether according to the law, so that there was no king before him, and none arose after him, who was like him, yet the Lord did not turn away from the fierceness of His great wrath against Judah, and resolved to remove Judah also out of His sight, because of the sins of Manasseh. This didactic connecting of the tragical end of the pious king with the task of his reign, which he followed out so zealously, viz., to lead his people back to the Lord, and so turn away the threatened destruction, is not found in the Chronicle. Here the war with Necho, in which Josiah fell, is introduced by the simple formula: After all this, that Josiah had prepared the house, i.e., had restored and ordered the temple worship, Necho the king of Egypt came up to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Josiah went out against him. For further information as to Necho and his campaign, see on 2Ki 23:29.

Verse 21

Then he (Pharaoh Necho) sent messengers to him, saying, “What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? Not against thee, thee, (do I come) to-day (now), but against my hereditary enemy; and God has said that I must make haste: cease from God, who is with me, that I destroy thee not.” ולך מה־לּי, see Jdg 11:12; 2Sa 16:10. אתּה is an emphatic repetition of the pronominal suffix; cf. Gesen. Gr. §121. 3. היּום, this day, that is, at present. מלחמתּי בּית does not signify, my warlike house, but, the house of my war, i.e., the family with which I wage war, equivalent to “my natural enemy in war, my hereditary enemy.” This signification is clear from 1Ch 18:10 and 2Sa 8:10, where “man of the war of Tou” denotes, the man who waged war with Tou.^[19]
The God who had commanded Pharaoh to make haste, and whom Josiah was not to go against, is not an Egyptian god, as the Targ. and many commentators think, referring to Herod. ii. 158, but the true God, as is clear from 2Ch 35:22. Yet we need not suppose, with the older commentators, that God had sive per somnium sive per prophetam aliquem ad ipsum e Judaea missum spoken to Pharaoh, and commanded him to advance quickly to the Euphrates. For even had Pharaoh said so in so many words, we could not here think of a divine message made known to him by a prophet, because God is neither called יהוה nor האלהים, but merely אלהים, and so it is only the Godhead in general which is spoken of; and Pharaoh only characterizes his resolution as coming from God, or only says: It was God's will that Josiah should not hinder him, and strive against him. This Pharaoh might say without having received any special divine revelation, and after the warning had been confirmed by the unfortunate result for Josiah of his war against Necho; the biblical historian also might represent Necho's words as come from God, or “from the mouth of God.”

Verses 22-24

But Josiah turned not his face from him, i.e., did not abandon his design, “but to make war against him he disguised himself.” התהפּשׂ denotes elsewhere to disguise by clothing, to clothe oneself falsely (2Ch 18:29; 1Ki 20:38; 1Ki 22:30), and to disfigure oneself (Job 30:18). This signification is suitable here also, where the word is transferred to the mental domain: to disfigure oneself, i.e., to undertake anything which contradicts one's character. During his whole reign, Josiah had endeavoured to carry out the will of God; while in his action against Pharaoh, on the contrary, he had acted in a different way, going into battle against the will of God.^[20]
As to the motive which induced Josiah, notwithstanding Necho's warning, to oppose him by force of arms, see the remark on 2Ki 23:29. The author of the Chronicle judges the matter from the religious point of view, from which the undertaking is seen to have been against the will of God, and therefore to have ended in Josiah's destruction, and does not further reflect on the working of divine providence, exhibited in the fact that the pious king was taken away before the judgment, the destruction of the kingdom of Judah, broke over the sinful people. For further information as to the Valley of Megiddo, the place where the battle was fought, and on the death of Josiah, see 2Ki 23:29. The העבירוּני, bring me forth (2Ch 35:23), is explained in 2Ch 35:24 : his servants took him, mortally wounded by an arrow, from the war-chariot, and placed him in a second chariot which belonged to him, and probably was more comfortable for a wounded man.

Verses 25-27

The death of the pious king was deeply lamented by his people. The prophet Jeremiah composed a lamentation for Josiah: “and all the singing-men and singing-women spake in their lamentations of Josiah unto this day;” i.e., in the lamentation which they were wont to sing on certain fixed days, they sung also the lamentation for Josiah. “And they made them (these lamentations) an ordinance (a standing custom) in Israel, and they are written in the lamentations,” i.e., in a collection of lamentations, in which, among others, that composed by Jeremiah on the death of Josiah was contained. This collection is, however, not to be identified with the Lamentations of Jeremiah over the destruction of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah, contained in our canon. - On 2Ch 35:26. cf. 2Ki 23:28. הסדיו as in 2Ch 32:32. בת כּכּתוּב, according to that which is written in the law of Moses, cf. 2Ch 31:3. וּדבריו is the continuation of דּברי יתר (2Ch 35:26).

Chap. 36

Verses 1-4

The Last Kings of Judah; the Destruction of Jerusalem; Judah Led Away Captive; and the Babylonian Exile - 2 Chronicles 36

As the kingdom of Judah after Josiah's death advanced with swift steps to its destruction by the Chaldeans, so the author of the Chronicle goes quickly over the reigns of the last kings of Judah, who by their godless conduct hastened the ruin of the kingdom. As to the four kings who reigned between Josiah's death and the destruction of Jerusalem, he gives, besides their ages at their respective accessions, only a short characterization of their conduct towards God, and a statement of the main events which step by step brought about the ruin of the king and the burning of Jerusalem and the temple.
2Ch 36:1-4The reign of Jehoahaz. Cf. 2Ki 23:30-35. - After Josiah's death, the people of the land raised his son Jehoahaz (Joahaz), who was then twenty-three years old, to the throne; but he had been king in Jerusalem only three months when the Egyptian king (Necho) deposed him, imposed upon the land a fine of 100 talents of silver and one talent of gold, made his brother Eliakim king under the name Jehoiakim, and carried Jehoahaz, who had been taken prisoner, away captive to Egypt. For further information as to the capture and carrying away of Jehoahaz, and the appointment of Eliakim to be king, see on 2Ki 23:31-35.

Verse 5

2Ch 36:5The reign of Jehoiakim. Cf. 2 Kings 23:36-24:7. - Jehoiakim was at his accession twenty-five years of age, reigned eleven years, and did that which was evil in the eyes of Jahve his God.

Verses 6-8

2Ch 36:6-8 “Against him came Nebuchadnezzar (in inscriptions, Nabucudurriusur, i.e., Nebo coronam servat; see on Dan. S. 56) the king of Babylon, and bound him with brazen double fetters to carry him to Babylon.” This campaign, Nebuchadnezzar's first against Judah, is spoken of also in 2 Kings 24 and Dan 1:1-2. The capture of Jerusalem, at which Jehoiakim was put in fetters, occurred, as we learn from Dan 1:1, col. c. Jer 46:2 and Jer 36:7, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign, i.e., in the year 606 b.c.; and with it commence the seventy years of the Chaldean servitude of Judah. Nebuchadnezzar did not carry out his purpose of deporting the captured king Jehoiakim to Babylon, but allowed him to continue to reign at Jerusalem as his servant (vassal). To alter the infin. להוליכו into the perf., or to translate as the perf., is quite arbitrary, as is also the supplying of the words, “and he carried him away to Babylon.” That the author of the Chronicle does not mention the actual carrying away, but rather assumes the contrary, namely, that Jehoiakim continued to reign in Jerusalem until his death, as well known, is manifest from the way in which, in 2Ch 36:8, he records his son's accession to the throne. He uses the same formula which he has used in the case of all the kings whom at their death their sons succeeded, according to established custom. Had Nebuchadnezzar dethroned Jehoiakim, as Necho deposed Jehoahaz, the author of the Chronicle would not have left the installation of Jehoiachin by the Chaldean king unmentioned. For the defence of this view against opposing opinions, see the commentary on 2Ki 24:1 and Dan 1:1; and in regard to 2Ch 36:7, see on Dan 1:2. The Chronicle narrates nothing further as to Jehoiakim's reign, but refers, 2Ch 36:8, for his other deeds, and especially his abominations, to the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, whence the most important things have been excerpted and incorporated in 2Ki 24:1-4. עשׂה אשׁר תּועבותיו Bertheau interprets of images which he caused to be prepared, and עליו הנּמצא of his evil deeds; but in both he is incorrect. The passages which Bertheau cites for his interpretation of the first words, Jer 7:9. and Eze 8:17, prove the contrary; for Jeremiah mentions as תּועבות of the people, murder, adultery, false swearing, offering incense to Baal, and going after other gods; and Ezekiel, loc. cit., uses תּועבות עשׂות of the idolatry of the people indeed, but not of the making of images - only of the worship of idols, the practice of idol-worship. The abominations, consequently, which Jehoiakim committed are both his evil deeds and crimes, e.g., the shedding of innocent blood (2Ki 24:4), as well as the idolatry which he had practised. עליו הנּמצא, “what was found upon him,” is a comprehensive designation of his whole moral and religious conduct and attitude; cf. 2Ch 19:3. Jehoiakim's revolt from Nebuchadnezzar after three years' servitude (2Ki 24:1) is passed over by the author of the Chronicle, because the punishment of this crime influenced the fate of the kingdom of Judah only after his death. The punishment fell upon Jehoiachin; for the detachments of Arameans, Moabites, and Ammonites, which were sent by Nebuchadnezzar to punish the rebels, did not accomplish much.

Verses 9-10

2Ch 36:9-10The reign of Jehoiachin. Cf. 2Ki 24:8-17. - Jehoiachin's age at his accession is here given as eight years, while in 2Ki 24:8 it is eighteen. It is so also in the lxx and Vulg.; but a few Hebr. codd., Syr., and Arab., and many manuscripts of the lxx, have eighteen years in the Chronicle also. The number eight is clearly an orthographical error, as Thenius also acknowledges. Bertheau, on the contrary, regards the eight of our text as the original, and the number eighteen in 2 Kings as an alteration occasioned by the idea that eighteen years appeared a more fitting age for a king than eight years, and gives as his reason, “that the king's mother is named along with him, and manifestly with design, 2Ki 24:12, 2Ki 24:15, and Jer 22:26, whence we must conclude that she had the guardianship of the young king.” A perfectly worthless reason. In the books of Kings the name of the mother is given in the case of all the kings after their accession has been mentioned, without any reference to the age of the kings, because the queen-mother occupied a conspicuous position in the kingdom. It is so in the case of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, 2Ki 23:36 and 2Ki 24:8. On account of her high position, the queen-mother is mentioned in 2Ki 24:12 and 2Ki 24:15, and in Jeremiah, among those who submitted to Nebuchadnezzar and were carried away to Babylon. The correctness of the number eighteen is, however, placed beyond doubt by Eze 19:5-9, where the prophet portrays Jehoiachin as a young lion, which devoured men, and knew widows, and wasted cities. The knowing of widows cannot apply to a boy of eight, but might well be said of a young man of eighteen. Jehoiachin ruled only three months and ten days in Jerusalem, and did evil in the eyes of Jahve. At the turn of the year, i.e., in spring, when campaigns were usually opened (cf. 1Ki 20:22; 2Sa 11:1), Nebuchadnezzar sent his generals (2Ki 24:10), and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of Jahve, and made his (father's) brother Zedekiah king in Judah. In these few words the end of Jehoiachin's short reign is recorded. From 2Ki 24:10-16 we learn more as to this second campaign of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, and its issues for Judah; see the commentary on that passage. Zidkiyah (Zedekiah) was, according to 2Ki 24:17, not a brother, but דּוד, uncle or father's brother, of Jehoiachin, and was called Mattaniah, a son of Josiah and Hamutal, like Jehoahaz (2Ki 24:18, cf. 2Ki 23:31), and is consequently his full brother, and a step-brother of Jehoiakim. At his appointment to the kingdom by Nebuchadnezzar he received the name Zidkiyah (Zedekiah). אהיו, in 2Ch 36:10, is accordingly to be taken in its wider signification of blood-relation.

Verses 11-13

2Ch 36:11-13The reign of Zedekiah; the destruction of Jerusalem, and Judah carried away into exile. Cf. 2 Kings 24:18-25:21. - Zedekiah, made king at the age of twenty-one years, reigned eleven years, and filled up the measure of sins, so that the Lord was compelled to give the kingdom of Judah up to destruction by the Chaldeans. To that Zedekiah brought it by the two main sins of his evil reign, - namely, by not humbling himself before the prophet Jeremiah, from the mouth of Jahve (2Ch 36:12); and by rebelling against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had caused him to swear by God, and by so hardening his neck (being stiff-necked), and making stout his heart, that he did not return to Jahve the God of Israel. Zedekiah's stiffness of neck and hardness of heart showed itself in his refusing to hearken to the words which Jeremiah spoke to him from the mouth of God, and his breaking the oath he had sworn to Nebuchadnezzar by God. The words, “he humbled himself not before Jeremiah,” recall Jer 37:2, and the events narrated in Jer 37 and 38, and 21:4-22:9, which show how the chief of the people ill-treated the prophet because of his prophecies, while Zedekiah was too weak and languid to protect him against them. The rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar, to whom he had sworn a vassal's oath of fidelity, is mentioned in 2Ki 24:20, and Eze 17:13. also, as a great crime on the part of Zedekiah and the chief of the people; see the commentary on both passages. In consequence of this rebellion, Nebuchadnezzar marched against Judah with a powerful army; and after the capture of the fenced cities of the land, he advanced to the siege of Jerusalem, which ended in its capture and destruction, 2Ki 25:1-10. Without further noticing these results of this breach of faith, the author of the Chronicle proceeds to depict the sins of the king and of the people. In the first place, he again brings forward, in 2Ch 36:13, the stiffness of neck and obduracy of the king, which manifested itself in the acts just mentioned: he made hard his neck, etc. Bertheau would interpret the words וגו ויּקשׁ, according to Deu 2:30, thus: “Then did God make him stiff-necked and hardened his heart; so that he did not return to Jahve the God of Israel, notwithstanding the exhortations of the prophets.” But although hardening is not seldom represented as inflicted by God, there is here no ground for supposing that with ויּקשׁ the subject is changed, while the bringing forward of the hardening as an act of God does not at all suit the context. And, moreover, ערף הקשׁה, making hard the neck, is nowhere ascribed to God, it is only said of men; cf. 2Ki 17:14; Deu 10:16; Jer 19:15, etc. To God only את־לב הקשׁה or את־רוּח is attributed, Exo 7:3; Deu 2:30.

Verses 14-16

2Ch 36:14-16 “And all princes of the priests and the people increased faithless transgressions, like to all the abominations of the heathen, and defiled the house of the Lord which He had consecrated in Jerusalem.” Bertheau would refer this censure of their idolatry and the profanation of the temple to the guilt incurred by the whole people, especially in the time of Manasseh, because, from all we know from the book of Jeremiah, the reproach of idolatry did not at all, or at least did not specially, attach to the princes of the priests and the people in the time of Zedekiah. But this reason is neither tenable nor correct; for from Ezek 8 it is perfectly manifest that under Zedekiah, not only the people, but also the priesthood, were deeply sunk in idolatry, and that even the courts of the temple were defiled by it. And even though that idolatry did not take its rise under Zedekiah, but had been much practised under Jehoiakim, and was merely a revival and continuation of the idolatrous conduct of Manasseh and Amon, yet the reference of our verse to the time of Manasseh is excluded by the context; for here only that which was done under Zedekiah is spoken of, without any reference to earlier times.
Meanwhile God did not leave them without exhortation, warning, and threatening. - 2Ch 36:15. Jahve sent to them by His messengers, from early morning onwards continually, for He spared His people and His dwelling-place; but they mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets. בּיד שׁלח, to send a message by any one, to make a sending. The object is to be supplied from the verb. ושׁלוח השׁכּם exactly as in Jer 26:5; Jer 29:19. For He spared His people, etc., viz., by this, that He, in long-suffering, again and again called upon the people by prophets to repent and return, and was not willing at once to destroy His people and His holy place. מלעיבים is ἁπ. λεγ., in Syr. it signifies subsannavit; the Hithp. also, מתּעתּעים (from תּעע), occurs only here as an intensive: to launch out in mockery. The distinction drawn between מלאכים (messengers) and נביאים (prophets) is rhetorical, for by the messengers of God it is chiefly prophets who are meant; but the expression is not to be confined to prophets in the narrower sense of the word, for it embraces all the men of God who, by word and deed, censured and punished the godless conduct of the idolaters. The statement in these two verses is certainly so very general, that it may apply to all the times of gradually increasing defection of the people from the Lord their God; but the author of the Chronicle had primarily in view only the time of Zedekiah, in which the defection reached its highest point. It should scarcely be objected that in the time of Zedekiah only Jeremiah is known as a prophet of the Lord, since Ezekiel lived and wrought among the exiles. For, in the first place, it does not hence certainly follow that Jeremiah and Ezekiel were the only prophets of that time; then, secondly, Jeremiah does not speak as an individual prophet, but holds up to the people the witness of all the earlier prophets (cf. e.g., 2Ch 26:4-5), so that by him all the former prophets of God spoke to the people; and consequently the plural, His messengers, His prophets, is perfectly true even for the time of Zedekiah, if we always keep in mind the rhetorical character of the style. וגו עלות עד, until the anger of Jahve rose upon His people, so that there was no healing (deliverance) more.

Verse 17

When the moral corruption had reached this height, judgment broke upon the incorrigible race. As in 2Ch 36:12-16 the transgressions of the king and people are not described according to their historical progression, but are portrayed in rhetorical gradation; so, too, in 2Ch 36:17-21 the judgment upon the sinful people and kingdom is not represented in its historical details, but only rhetorically in its great general outlines. “Then brought He upon them the king of the Chaldeans, who slew their young men with the sword in their sanctuary, and spared not the youth and the maiden, the old man and the grey-headed; he gave everything into his hand.” Prophetic utterances form the basis of this description of the fearful judgment, e.g., Jer 15:1-9; Jer 32:3., Eze 9:6; and these, again, rest upon Deu 32:25. The subject in the first and last clause of the verse is Jahve. Bertheau therefore assumes that He is also the subject of the intermediate sentence: “and God slew their young men in the sanctuary;” but this can hardly be correct. As in the expansion of the last clause, “he gave everything into his hand,” which follows in 2Ch 36:18, not Jahve but the king of Babylon is the subject; so also in the expansion of the first clause, which וגו ויּהרג introduces, the king of the Chaldeans is the subject, as most commentators have rightly recognised. By מקדּשׁם בּבית the judgment is brought into definite relationship to the crime: because they had profaned the sanctuary by idolatry (2Ch 36:14), they themselves were slain in the sanctuary. On נתן ב הכּל, cf. Jer 27:6; Jer 32:3-4. הכּל includes things and persons, and is specialized in 2Ch 36:18-20.

Verse 18

All the vessels of the house of God, the treasures of the temple, and of the palace of the king and of the princes, all he brought to Babylon.

Verse 19

They burnt the house of God; they pulled down the walls of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces of the city with fire, and all the costly vessels were devoted to destruction. On להשׁחית, cf. 2Ch 12:12.

Verses 20-21

He who remained from the sword, i.e., who had not been slain by the sword, had not fallen and died in war, Nebuchadnezzar carried away to Babylon into captivity; so that they became servants to him and to his sons, as Jeremiah (Jer 27:7) prophesied, until the rise of the kingdom of the Persians. These last words also are an historical interpretation of the prophecy, Jer 27:7. All this was done (2Ch 36:21) to fulfil (מלּאת instead of מלּא, as in 1Ch 29:5), that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, he having prophesied (Jer 25:11., 2Ch 29:10) the seventy years' duration of Judah's desolation and the Babylonian captivity, while the king and people had not regarded his words (2Ch 36:12). This period, which according to 2Ch 36:20 came to an end with the rise of the kingdom of the Persians, is characterized by the clause וגו רצתה עד as a time of expiation of the wrong which had been done the land by the non-observance of the sabbath-years, upon the basis of the threatening (Lev 26:34), in which the wasting of the land during the dispersion of the unrepentant people among the heathen was represented as a compensation for the neglected sabbaths. From this passage in the law the words are taken, to show how the Lord had inflicted the punishment with which the disobedient people had been threatened as early as in the time of Moses. רצתה עד is not to be translated, “until the land had made up its years of rest;” that signification רצה has not; but, “until the land had enjoyed its sabbath-years,” i.e., until it had enjoyed the rest of which it had been deprived by the non-observance of the sabbaths and the sabbath-years, contrary to the will of its Creator; see on Lev 26:34. That this is the thought is placed beyond doubt by the succeeding circumstantial clause, taken word for word from Lev 26:34 : “all days (i.e., the whole time) of its desolation did it hold it” (שׁבתה, it kept sabbath). “To make full the seventy years;” which Jeremiah, ll. cc., had prophesied.
This connecting of Jeremiah's prophecy with the declaration in Lev 26:34 does not justify us in supposing that the celebration of the sabbath-year had been neglected seventy times, or that for a period of 490 years the sabbath-year had not been observed. Bertheau, holding this view, fixes upon 1000 b.c., i.e., the time of Solomon, or, as we cannot expect any very great chronological exactitude, the beginning of the kingly government in Israel, as the period after which the rest-years ceased to be regarded. He is further of opinion that 2Ch 35:18 harmonizes with this view; according to which passage the passover was not celebrated in accordance with the prescription of the law until the end of the period of the judges. According to this chronological calculation, the beginning of this neglect of the observance of the sabbath-year would fall in the beginning of the judgeship of Samuel.^[21]
But this is itself unlikely; and still more unlikely is it, that in the time of the judges the sabbath-year had been regularly observed until Samuel; and that during the reigns of the kings David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, this celebration remained wholly in abeyance. But even apart from that, the words, that the land, to make full the seventy years prophesied by Jeremiah, kept the whole time of the desolation holy, or enjoyed a sabbath rest such as Moses had proclaimed in Lev 26:34, do not necessarily involve that the land had been deprived of its sabbath rest seventy times in succession, or during a period of 490 years, by the sin of the people. The connection between the prophecy of Jeremiah and the provision of the law is to be understood theologically, and does not purport to be calculated chronologically. The thought is this: By the infliction of the punishment threatened against the transgressors of the law by the carrying of the people away captive into Babylon, the land will obtain the rest which the sinful people had deprived it of by their neglect of the sabbath observance commanded them. By causing it to remain uncultivated for seventy years, God gave to the land a time of rest and refreshment, which its inhabitants, so long as they possessed it, had not given it. But that does not mean that the time for which this rest was granted corresponded to the number of the sabbath-years which had not been observed. From these theological reflections we cannot calculate how often in the course of the centuries, from the time of Joshua onwards till the exile, the sabbath-year had not been observed; and still less the time after which the observation of the sabbath-year was continuously neglected. The passage 2Ch 35:8 has no bearing on this question, because it neither states that the passover had been held according to the precepts of the law till towards the end of the time of the judges, nor that it was no longer celebrated in accordance with the precept from that time until Josiah; it only contains the thought that such a passover as that in Josiah's reign had not been held since the time of the judges: see on the passage.

Verses 22-23

To point out still further how exactly God had fulfilled His word by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah, it is in conclusion briefly mentioned that God, in the first year of Coresh king of Persia, stirred up the spirit of this king to cause a command to go forth in all his kingdom, that Jahve, the God of heaven, who had given him all the kingdoms of the earth, had commanded him to build again His temple in Jerusalem, and that whoever belonged to the people of God might go up to Jerusalem. With this comforting prospect for the future, the author of the Chronicle closes his consideration of the prae-exilic history of the people of God without completely communicating the contents of the royal edict of Cyrus, since he purposed to narrate the history of the restoration of Judah to their own land in a separate work. This we have in the book of Ezra, which commences by giving us the whole of the edict of Cyrus the king of the Persians (Ezr 1:1-3), and then narrates the return of a great part of the people to Jerusalem and Judah, the rebuilding of the temple, and the re-settlement in the land of their fathers of those who had returned.

==Page:03.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.B.vol.3.LaterProphets.djvu/537==

1. The assertion of Thenius on 1Ki 10:26., that he found this section in his authorities in two different places and in different connections, copied them mechanically, and only towards the end of the second passage remarked the repetition and then abridged the statement, is at once refuted by observing, that in the supposed repetition the first half (2Ch 9:25-26) does not at all agree with 1Ki 10:26, but coincides with the statement in 1Ki 5:6-7.
2. There is consequently no need to alter the text according to 1Ki 6:3, from which passage Berth. would interpolate the words פּניו על רחבּו בּאמּה ר עשׂר הבּית between על־פּני and הארך, and thereby get the signification: “and the porch which is before the house, ten cubits is its breadth before the same, and the length which is before the breadth twenty cubits.” But this conjecture is neither necessary nor probable. It is not necessary, for (1) the present text gives an intelligible sense; (2) the assertion that the length and breadth of the porch must be stated cannot be justified, if for no other reason, for this, that even of the main buildings all three dimensions are not given, only two being stated, and that it was not the purpose of the author of the Chronicle to give an architecturally complete statement, his main anxiety being to supply a general idea of the splendour of the temple. It is not probable; because the chronicler, if he had followed 1Ki 6:3, would not have written על־פּניו, but הבּית על־פּני, and instead of הארך would have written וערכּי, to correspond with רחבּו.
3. For further information as to the commencement of this aqueduct, see the masterly dissertation of Dr. Herm. Zschokke, “Die versiegelte Quelle Salomo's,” in the Tübingen Theol. Quartalschr. 1867, H. 3, S. 426ff.
4. C. Schick, Reise in das Philisterland (in “Ausland” 1867, Nr. 7, S. 162), identifies Gath with the present Tel Safieh, “an isolated conical hill in the plain, like a sentinel of a watchtower or fortress, and on that account there was so much struggling for its possession.” On the other hand, Konr. Furrer, Wanderungen durch Palästina, Zürich 1865, thinks, S. 133, that he has found the true situation of Gath in the Wady el Gat, northward of the ruins of Askalon.
5. Compare the interesting note of Breytenbach (Reybb. des heil. Landes, i. 134) in Tobler, dritte Wand. S. 463: “Thence (from Azekah) three miles is the city Zochot-Jude, not far from Nobah, where David slew Goliath.”
6. Against this Bertheau remarks, after the example of Thenius: “When we consider that the wife of Abijah and mother of Asa was also called Maachah, 1Ki 15:13; 2Ch 15:16, and that in 1Ki 15:2 this Maachah is again called the daughter of Abishalom, and that this latter statement is not met with in the Chronicle, we are led to conjecture that Maachah, the mother of Abijah, the daughter of Abishalom, has been confounded with Maachah the mother of Asa, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah, and that in our passage Asa's mother is erroneously named instead of the mother of Abijah.” This conjecture is a strange fabric of perverted facts and inconsequential reasoning. In 1Ki 15:2 Abijam's mother is called Maachah the daughter of Abishalom, exactly as in 2Ch 11:20 and 2Ch 11:21; and in 1Ki 15:13, in perfect agreement with 2Ch 15:16, it is stated that Asa removed Maachah from the dignity of Gebira because she had made herself a statute of Asherah. This Maachah, deposed by Asa, is called in 1Ki 15:10 the daughter of Abishalom, and only this latter remark is omitted from the Chronicle. How from these statements we must conclude that the mother of Abijah, Maachah the daughter of Abishalom, has been confounded with Maachah the mother of Asa, the daughter of Uriel, we cannot see. The author of the book of Kings knows only one Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom, whom in 2Ch 15:2 he calls mother, i.e., גּבירה, i.e., Sultana Walide of Abijah, and in 2Ch 15:10 makes to stand in the same relationship of mother to Asa. From this, however, the only natural and logically sound conclusion which can be drawn is that Abijam's mother, Rehoboam's wife, occupied the position of queen-mother, not merely during the three years' reign of Abijam, but also during the first years of the reign of his son Asa, as his grandmother, until Asa had deprived her of this dignity because of her idolatry. It is nowhere said in Scripture that this woman was Abijam's wife, but that is a conclusion drawn by Thenius and Bertheau only from her being called אמּו, his (Asa's) mother, as if אם could denote merely the actual mother, and not the grandmother. Finally, the omission in the Chronicle of the statement in 1Ki 15:10, “The name of his mother was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom,” does not favour in the very least the conjecture that Asa's mother has been confounded with the mother of Abijah; for it is easily explained by the fact that at the accession of Asa no change was made in reference to the dignity of queen-mother, Abijah's mother still holding that position even under Asa.
7. 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.”
8. C. P. Caspari, der Syrisch-ephraimitische Krieg, Christian. 1849, S. 51, explains the absol. הנּבוּאה by an ellipse, as in Isa 3:14; Isa 8:11, “the prophecy (that) of Oded,” but answers the question why Oded is used in 2Ch 15:8 instead of Azarjahu ben Oded by various conjectures, none of which can be looked upon as probable.
9. Movers, S. 255ff., and Then. on 1 Kings 15, launch out into arbitrary hypotheses, founded in both cases upon the erroneous presumption that the author of the Chronicle copied our canonical books of Kings - they being his authority-partly misunderstanding and partly altering them.
10. He remarks: “The path winds up in zig-zags, often at the steepest gradient which horses could ascend, and runs partly along projecting walls of rock on the perpendicular face of the cliff, and then down the heaps of débris, which are almost as steep. When one looks back at this part from below, it seems quite impossible that there could be any pathway; but by skilful windings the path has been carried down without any unconquerable difficulties, so that even loaded camels often go up and down.”
11. “Neque enim,” says Ramb., “ulla ratione credibile est, Deum in gratiam impii regis ejusmodi quid fecisse, cujus nullum alias exemplum exstat; immo quod nec necessarium erat, quum plures aliae essent rationes, quibus Deus voluntatem suam ei manifestare poterat; coll. Luc. 16:27, 29.” And, still more conclusively, Calov. declares: “Non enim triumphantium in coelis est erudire aut ad poenitentiam revocare mortales in terra. Habent Mosen et prophetas, si illos non audiant, neque si quis ex mortius resurrexerit, nedum si quis ex coelis literas perscripserit, credent Luc. 16:31.”
12. Even the old translators could make nothing of the present text, and expressed the first clause of the verse as they thought best. lxx, ὅτι ἐὰν ὑπολάβης κατασχῦσαι ἐν τούτοις; Vulg., quod si putes in robore exercitus bella consistere; after which Luth., “denn so du komest das du eine künheit beweisest im streit, wird Gott dich fallen lassen für deinen Feinden.”
13. This statement, which is not found in 2 Kings 14, may, in the opinion of Berth., perhaps not rest upon a definite tradition, but be merely the application of a principle which generally was found to act in the history of Israel to a particular case; i.e., it may be a clothing in historical garments of the principle that divine punishment came upon the idolatrous king, because it does not agree with the statement of 2Ki 14:3. In that passage it is said of Amaziah: He did what was right in the eyes of Jahve, only not as David; altogether as his father Joash had done, did he. But Joash allowed his princes, after Jehoiada's death, to worship idols and Asheras, and had caused the prophet Zechariah, who reproved this idolatry, to be stoned. These are facts which, it is true, are narrated only in the Chronicle, but which are admitted by Bertheau himself to be historical. Now if Amaziah did altogether the same as his father Joash, who allowed idolatry, etc., it is hard indeed to see wherein the inconsistency of our account of Amaziah's idolatry with the character assigned to this king in 2Ki 14:3 consists. Bertheau has omitted to give us any more definite information on this point.
14. Cf. the elaborate discussion of this question in Caspari, Beitr. zur Einl. in das B. Jesaja, S. 109ff.
15. In this matter Movers too has gone very superficially to work, remarking in support of the contradiction (bibl. Chron. S. 328): “If Manasseh was so zealous a penitent, it may be asked, Would he not have destroyed all idolatrous images, according to the Mosaic law, as the Chronicle itself, 2Ch 33:15 (cf. 2Ch 29:17; 2Ch 15:16; 2Ki 23:12), sufficiently shows? Had idolatry ceased in all Judah in the last year of Manasseh's reign, as is stated in 2Ch 33:17, could it, during the two years' reign of his son Amon, have spread abroad in a manner hitherto unheard of in Jewish history, as it is portrayed under Josiah, 2Ki 23:4.?” But where is it stated in the Chronicle that Manasseh was so zealous a penitent as to have destroyed the images according to the Mosaic law? Not even the restoration of the Jahve-worship according to the provisions of the law is once spoken of, as it is in the case of Hezekiah and of Josiah (cf. 2Ch 30:5 and 2Ch 30:16, 2Ch 34:21; 2Ch 35:26); and does it follow from the fact that Judah, in consequence of Manasseh's command to serve Jahve, still sacrificed in the high places, yet to Jahve, that under Manasseh idolatry ceased throughout Judah?
16. So Jul. Oppert, “die biblische Chronologie festgestellt nach den Assyrischen Keilschriften,” in d. Ztschr. der deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch. (xxiii. S. 134), 1869, S. 144; while Duncker, loc. cit. i. S. 709, on the ground of the divergent statement of Berosus as to the reign of Esarhaddon, and according to other chronological combinations, gives the year 693 b.c., - a date which harmonizes neither with Sennacherib's inscriptions, so far as these have yet been deciphered, nor with the statements of the Kanon Ptol., nor with biblical chronology. It, moreover, makes it necessary to shorten the fifty-five years of Manasseh's reign to thirty-five, which is all the more arbitrary as the chronological data of the Kanon Ptol. harmonize with the biblical chronology and establish their accuracy, as I have already pointed out in my apolog. Vers. über die Chron. S. 429f.
17. The lxx translate ἐν τοῖς τόποις αὐτῶν, expressing merely the בתיהם. The Targ. has צדיוּתהון בבית, in domo (s. loco) desolationis eorum.
18. The addition of the lxx to 2Ki 22:3, “in the eighth month,” to which Thenius and Berth. attach some weight, as a proof that the years of Josiah's reign are dated from autumn, is utterly useless for that purpose. For even were that addition more than a worthless gloss, it would only prove the contrary, since the eighth month of the civil year, which is reckoned from autumn, corresponds to the second month of the ecclesiastical year, and would consequently carry us beyond the time of the passover.
19. When Bertheau, on the contrary, denies this signification, referring to 1Ch 18:10 for support, he would seem not to have looked narrowly at the passage cited; and the conjecture, based upon 3 Esr. 1:25, which he, following O. F. Fritzsche, brings forward, מלחמתּי לא־פּרת, “on the Euphrates is my war,” gains no support from the passage quoted. For the author of this apocryphal book, which was written on the model of the lxx, has not translated the text he uses, but only paraphrased it: οὐχὶ πρὸς σὲ ἐξαπέσταλμαι, ὑπὸ κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῦ Εὐφράτου ὁ πόλεμος μού ἐστι, καὶ κύριος μετ ̓ ἐμοῦ ἐπισπεύδων ἐστίν. Neither the lxx nor Vulg. have read and translated פּרת in their original text; for they run as follows: οὐκ ἐπὶ σὲ ἥκω (taking אתּה for אהת) σήμερον πόλεμον ποιῆσαι, καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εἶπεν κατασπεῦσαι με. Vulg.: Non adversus te hodie venio, sed contra aliam pugno domum, ad quam me Deus festinato ire praecepit.
20. Bertheau would alter התחפשׂ into    התחזק, because the lxx, and probably also the Vulg., Syr., 3 Esr. 2Ch 1:16, and perhaps also Josephus, have so read. But only the lxx have ἐκραταιώθη, Vulg. praeparavit, 3 Esr. ἐπεχείρει; so that for התחזק only the lxx remain, whose translation gives no sufficient ground for an alteration of the text. התחזק, to show oneself strong, or courageous, is not at all suitable; for the author of the Chronicle is not wont to regard enterprises undertaken against God's will, and unfortunate in their results, as proofs of physical or spiritual strength.
21. The seventy years' exile began in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e., in the year 606 b.c., or 369 years after the division of the kingdom; see the Chronol. Tables at 1 Kings 12 (ii. 3, S. 141), to which the eighty years of the reigns of David and Solomon, and the time of Saul and Samuel, must be added to make up the 490 years (see the comment. on Judges).