BOOK OF THE KINGSCommonly Called THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE KINGS2 Kings 1:1-18.1Then Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab. And Ahaziah 2fell down through a [window-] lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease. 3But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, Go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not [omit not] because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? 4Now therefore thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. And Elijah departed. 5And when the messengers turned back unto him, he said unto them, Why are ye now turned back? 6And they said unto him, There came a man up to meet us, and said unto us, Go, turn again unto the king that sent you, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Is it not [omit not] because there is not a God in Israel, that thou sendest to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? therefore thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. 7And he said unto them, What manner of man was he which came up to meet you, and told you these words? 8And they answered him, He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite. 9Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty. And he went up to him: and, behold, he sat on the top of a hill. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down. 10And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a, man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. 11Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered [lifted up his voice] and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly. 12And Elijah answered and said unto them, [him], If [And if] I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. 13And he sent again a [third] captain of the third [omit the third] fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and besought him, and said unto him, O man of God, I pray thee, let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in thy sight. 14Behold, there came fire down from heaven, and burnt up the two captains of the former fifties with their fifties: therefore [but] let my life now be precious in thy sight. 15And the angel of the Lord said unto Elijah, Go down with him: be not afraid of him. And he arose, and went down with him unto the king. 16And he said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast sent messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron, is it not [omit not] because there is no God in Israel to inquire of his word? therefore thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. 17So he died according to the word of the Lord which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead, in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son. 18Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? AND 1 Kings 22:41. And Jehoshaphat, the son of Asa, &c. 2 Chronicles 17-21 gives a more detailed account of the reign of this king, which our author here treats with remarkable brevity. On 1 Kings 22:43, cf. 2 Kings 15:9 sq. The statement in the last part of 1 Kings 22:43 is not contradictory to 2 Chronicles 17:6, for the latter place refers to the idolatrous worship of Baal and Astarte, on the high places and in the groves, while here the author is speaking of the worship of Jehovah upon the high places, as in 2 Chronicles 20:33. (Cf. notes on 2 Kings 2:3). Jehoshaphat had peace (1 Kings 22:44) as a result of his matrimonial alliance with Ahab (2 Chronicles 18:1), not only with that king himself, but also with his successors, Ahaziah and Jehoram. On 1 Kings 22:45, cf. 2 Kings 15:23, and on 1 Kings 22:46, cf. 2 Kings 14:24, and 2 Kings 15:12. 1 Kings 22:47. There was then no king in Edom. This observation simply serves to introduce what the author desired to add, in 1 Kings 22:48-49, as especially important, from the history of the reign of Jehoshaphat. As Edom at that time had no king of its own, but merely a governor, Jehoshaphat could build a merchant-fleet in the Edomitic port, Ezion-geber, as Solomon had done before (2 Kings 9:26). The Edomites had been subjugated by David (2 Samuel 8:14), but attempted, in the latter part of the reign of Solomon, to regain their independence under the leadership of Hadad (chap 2 Kings 11:14 sq.); we have no information whether at all, or to what extent, this attempt succeeded. Keil and Ewald are of the opinion that the Edomites joined themselves to the Ammonites and Moabites in their war with Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 20:1 sq.), but were conquered by him, and then placed under a governor. There is not, however, the slightest mention of the Edomites in 2 Chronicles 20. There is just as little foundation for the supposition of Thenius, that Hadad’s family had died out before the time of Jehoshaphat, and that the’ latter profited cunningly by the quarrels which arose about the succession to re-establish the sovereignty of Judah over Edom. Only this much is certain, that circumstances had arisen in Edom under Jehoshaphat which brought about the appointment of a governor, and rendered possible the re-establishment of the trade with Ophir, which had existed in the most nourishing period of the kingdom.—On Ophir and the Ships of Tarshish, see notes on 2 Kings 10:22. The latter wore wrecked, as it seems, before leaving the harbor of Ezion-geber, by a storm. According to 2 Chronicles 20:35 sq., Jehoshaphat caused these ships to be built in company with Ahaziah, and the prophet Eliezer interpreted their destruction to him as a divine punishment for his connection with the apostate Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:52) after he had received a warning on account of his alliance with Ahab (2 Chronicles 19:2). Probably he hoped and believed that Ahaziah had better purposes than Ahab, and therefore he did not at first reject his propositions. When, however, Ahaziah made a second proposal to him (1 Kings 22:49) he declined to enter into it. In this opinion Keil also now agrees, although he formerly assumed that the ships were twice destroyed—first, those which, according to the passage before us, were destined for the voyage to Ophir, and then those which, according to 2 Chronicles 20:36, were intended for that to Tarshish (in Spain). The death of Jehoshaphat is somewhat anticipated in 1 Kings 22:50, for 2 Chronicles 3:7 sq. relates how he made an expedition against the Moabites with Jehoram, the successor of Ahaziah. 1 Kings 22:51. Ahaziah, the son of Ahab, &c. For the chronological statement: “The seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat,” which does not coincide with the duration of Ahab’s reign (1 Kings 16:29), and the commencement of Jehoshaphat’s reign (1 Kings 22:41); see below, on 2 Kings 8:16—On 1 Kings 22:52, cf. 1 Kings 16:29-33.—On the groundlessness of the division, which commences the “Second book of the Kings” after 1 Kings 22:53, see § 1 of the Introduction. Particularly the first verse of the second book stands in close connection with the three last verses of the first book, as is evident from the words After the death of Ahab. The death of this king and the accession of Ahaziah were the immediate causes of the attempt of the Moabites, who had been tributary ever since the time of David (2 Samuel 8:2), to separate themselves from Israel. We must therefore put this attempt before the rest which is related in regard to Ahaziah, especially before the construction of the merchant-fleet, which he attempted in company with Jehoshaphat. War with the revolted Moabites did not break out under Ahaziah, who did not reign for even two full years, but immediately after the accession of his successor, Jehoram (chap. 3). Keil thinks it clear that the revolt of the Moabites followed upon their alliance with the Ammonites, which is narrated in 2 Chronicles 20. This alliance, however, was directed against Jehoshaphat and Judah, and in the entire account there is no trace whatever that Israel took part in the expedition of Jehoshaphat, whereas 2 Kings 3:4 sq. treats of a war between Israel and the Moabites. Piscator correctly states the connection between 2 Kings 1:1-2 thus: Ζgrotavit, ac perinde nihil contra Moabitas tentare potuit. 2 Kings 1:2. And Ahaziah fell down through a (window-) lattice, &c. According to Ewald, with whom Thenius agrees, the passage (2 Kings 1:2-16) does not come from the same author as the other passages which treat of Elijah, viz., 1 Kings 17:18-19, and 2 Kings 2:1-18, but is of later origin than these, as “is clear from the difference of the language in regard to the descent of fire from heaven in 1 Kings 18:38, and 2 Kings 1:10-14, not to speak of the difference in the nature of the contents of the two passages.” When the narrative is correctly accepted, however, this latter difference disappears. Still less can we conclude, from the fact that πָ ?τַ ?μ is used of the descent of fire in the first passage and ιָ ?ψַ ?γ in the second, that they have different authors.—ωְׂ ?αָ ?λָ ?δ is lattice-work, also snare (Job 18:8). It can hardly be that we have here to think of the balustrade of the flat roof, but rather of the window-opening, which was provided with a lattice. For this interpretation αְּ ?ςַ ?γ through is also an argument. We may suppose that he leaned too far out through the low window, although he does not seem to have fallen very far, as it did not cost him his life; possibly only on to one of the galleries of the palace. That this took place on the occasion of a drinking-bout (Krummacher) is a groundless supposition. The Sept. render Baal-zebub [mentioned only in this passage in the Old Testament] by βάαλμυΐανθεὸν ’Ακκαρών, and Pliny says (Hist. Nat. 10, 28): Cyrenaici Achorem Deum (invocant) muscarum multitudine pestilentiam afferente qu� protinus interecunt postquam litatum est illi Deo. He is therefore the Baal who protects against the flies, which cause sickness and other calamities; “Defender against vermin,” like the Ζεὺςἀπόμυιος, μυίαγρος of the Eleans (Pausan. viii. 26, 4). Against this commonly received explanation (Gesenius, Movers, Ewald, Winer, Real-Wφrterbuch, i. s. 120), J. G. Mόller (Herzog, Encyc. i. s. 768), with whom Keil agrees, maintains that the “Fly-god” cannot have his name as enemy of flies, but that he was Μυῖαθεός, i.e., the fly as god, and therefore an idol in the form of a fly, “who must have stood in a similar relation to flies, being a sun-god and summer-god, as the oracle-god, Apollo, who sent and warded off sickness.” Stark (Gaza, s. 260) remarks further: “They (the flies) seem, in their appearance and disappearance, which depend entirely upon the weather, to be themselves endowed with some prophetic power.” This view, however, cannot be made to agree with the words of Pliny, and Ahaziah was certainly anxious not only for an oracle, but also at the same time and especially for recovery from his illness through the help of the Fly-god.—Ekron, probably the present Akir, was the northernmost of the five principal cities of the Philistines (Joshua 13:3), and so lay nearest to the royal residence, Samaria. [Cf. Robinson’s Biblical Researches, iii. 22–25. Following Ephrem, Vatablus remarks that Ahaziah sent to the Idol at Ekron by the advice of Jezebel. 2 Kings 1:3. But the Angel of the Lord, &c. “Not an angel but the angel of the Lord who makes known all the revelations of the invisible God to the covenant people. Cf. Hengstenberg, Christologie, I. 1, s. 219–232.” (Keil.) We have not to think of any external appearances. [ξַ ?μְ ?ΰַ ?κְ ιδ is the varying form under which God reveals himself on the earth, on different occasions. Indeed, in the older books there is often an ambiguity as to which is meant, God himself or some apparition, or the representations vary indifferently. Cf. Genesis 16:7; Genesis 16:10-11 (yet 2 Kings 1:14, “God of my sight,” i.e., “whom I have seen”); 2 Kings 21:9 sq.; cf. Genesis 17:15 sq., and Genesis 18:9-16. In Genesis 22. notice Genesis 1:12, at the end, “from me.” See also Genesis 31:11 sq., and espec.Genesis 1:13; also the story Genesis 32:24-32, espec. Genesis 32:30. Cf., further, Exodus 3:2; Exodus 3:16; Exodus 3:18; Exodus 4:6 sq.; Exodus 13:21; Exodus 14:19; Joshua 6:2; Judges 6:12 sq., espec. Judges 1:14; Judges 1:16; Judges 1:23; Judges 13:22-23. The latter passages seem to recognize the distinction more clearly. Judges 13:16, the angel distinguishes between himself and God. It follows that “whenever God appears, he does so in an angel, and whenever an angel appears, it is God who appears in him; so that appearances of the angel and appearances of God are the same.” Afterwards this method of revelation gave way to that of the prophets, with their “Thus saith the Lord!” In the poetical books we find a personification of wisdom, out of, and alongside of God, (cf. Job 28.), and all culminates in the logos-doctrine of St. John.—W. G. S.]—Where Elijah was then living we do not know. Thenius thinks “assuredly upon Mount Carmel;” but that is contradicted by the words, “Go up to meet the messengers!” for Ekron lay to the south and Carmel to the north of Samaria, in entirely opposite directions. We should have to suppose then that Elijah started much sooner, and came to meet the messengers immediately upon their coming out of Samaria.—And Elijah departed (2 Kings 1:4), i.e., he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded. 2 Kings 1:5. And when the messengers turned back unto him, &c. They must have received a powerful impression from the personal presence of Elijah, whom they did not know, since they felt themselves compelled at once to turn back and bring information to their master. The latter asks them in astonishment: Why are ye now turned back? as it was impossible that they could have been in Ekron. On the words that ye go (2 Kings 1:3), for which they say in 2 Kings 1:6 that thou sendest, Menken remarks, “They lay the blame entirely upon the king. The prophet, however, had spoken in such a way that they might observe that they also had incurred guilt, and had made themselves accomplices in another’s crime.”—ξִ ?ωְ ?τַּ ?θ (2 Kings 1:7) is not exactly figura et habitus (Vulgata), but the law or rule, as that which defines the entire personality, “the life-rule of the individual person” (Keil), his peculiarity, by virtue of which he is distinguished, and by which he may be recognized. That ΰִ ?ιωׁ αַּ ?ςַ ?μωֵׂ ?ςָ ?ψ does not mean “long hair covered his head” (Ewald), is clear from the description of the later Elijah (Matthew 3:4). The vir pilosus, hirsutus is the man who is clothed in a hairy (black) garment. Such was the peculiar dress of the prophets as preachers of repentance, and it was called (cf. Zechariah 13:4) ΰַ ?γֶּ ?ψֶ ?ϊωֵ ?ςָ ?ψ. It appears that this costume commenced with Elijah, who was the type of all following teachers of repentance, and that he was distinguished among the prophets of his time by means of it. (The 400 prophets of Ahab, 1 Kings 22:6, certainly did not wear this dress.) The girdle, generally the most expensive article of dress and the emblem of office, was made of leather only in the case of the poor and low (Winer, R. W. B. i. s. 448). In the case of the prophet the leather girdle signified self-denial and contempt for worldly ornament and grandeur, so that it corresponded perfectly to the coarse garment of hair (cf. the contrast, Matthew 11:8), Hebrews 11:37. 2 Kings 1:9. Then the king sent, &c. Elijah had immediately withdrawn again, whether unto Carmel remains uncertain; but certainly Ahaziah must have discovered his place of abode. The hostile intention of the king shows itself in the sending of soldiers; certainly some act of violence was proposed. Perhaps he feared lest the disciples of the prophets, or other adherents of Elijah, might offer resistance. Ewald thinks he was going “to have him brought down and then (as, of course, is clear) executed.” The army of Israel was divided up into bodies of 1,000, 100, and 50 (Numbers 31:14; Numbers 31:48; 1 Samuel 8:12), each of which had its own leader, ωַ ?ψ (Winer, i. s. 683). The address of the leader has a military sound: Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down! That the designation, “Man of God,” was, in his mouth, not conviction, but scorn, is shown by the haughty and dictatorial “Come down!” (ψֵ ?γָ ?δ). The “and” with which the answer of Elijah begins (2 Kings 1:10) must not be omitted, as it is in the Vulg. and Luther, “since Elijah is thought of in this first answer (otherwise in 2 Kings 1:12) as joining his speech immediately to that of the captain” (Thenius). The sense of the answer is: Thou callest me contemptuously and scoffingly “man of God;” but the Lord will show thee, that I am such—thou shalt experience it. [Patrick quotes a gloss of Abarbinel to this effect: “If I be a man of God, as thou gayest, but dost not think, then I am not bound to obey the king but God, nor am I subject to his power, but to God’s, who will make thee know that He judges in the earth.”]—[And there came down fire from heaven, &c. These words do not convey an intelligible description of any physical event of which we can conceive. If we try to realize the incident in imagination we find it impossible. It is not the ordinary difficulty which attaches to an ordinary miracle. There we cannot tell how a thing came to pass, though we can see what the record means to assert. We can imagine that a man who never had spoken should open his mouth and speak, though we cannot conceive how he could be enabled to do so. Here, however, the words do not describe any external phenomenon which is conceivable, not to say anything about the difficulty which attaches to every miracle of seeing how it was done. We cannot tell what the author means to assert to have come to pass, for the words by which he refers to it do not give us a sufficient description of it. It is evident, therefore, that they refer back vaguely to a terrible judgment, the accurate literal details of which were lost. It was only thus remembered as something strange, shocking, and supernatural. See Histor. § 5, where Bδhr seems inclined to take the statement figuratively, as a designation of the vengeance of God.—W. G. S.] The second captain who was sent (2 Kings 1:11) surpasses the first, instead of taking warning by his fate, in that he adds to the “Come down!” ξְ ?δֵ ?ψָ ?δ, “quickly,” thereby insinuating a threat. How the king received information of the destruction of his two expeditions we cannot determine, as no hint is given of it. The Berleburger Bibel says that the people of the neighborhood acquainted him with it.—ωְׁ ?μִ ?ωִׁ ?ιν 2 Kings 1:13 cannot mean “for the third time” (de Wette). If it cannot be referred to the fifty, as Keil explained it in his earlier edition, then we must read ωְׁ ?μִ ?ωׁ ?ι as Thenius does, i.e., “a third,” according to the story which immediately follows.—Afraid of him (2 Kings 1:15), i.e., not, as Thenius would have it taken, “of the captain,” but “of the king” (Seb. Smith, Keil), for it is clear that ξִ ?τָּ ?πָ ?ιε is opposed to ΰεֹ ?ϊεֹ. He goes down with him to the king. One would be glad to learn something more about the meeting of Elijah and Ahaziah, but the account is here (2 Kings 1:16-17), as in fact throughout, very brief and even disjointed. On that very account, however, it is the more pregnant, and bears the more distinctly the character of genuineness and originality. In later times events were not narrated in such compressed form. Here, just as in other cases, Elijah reappears suddenly, and disappears again, and no one knows whence he comes or whither he goes. The manner in which Krummacher delineates Elijah’s meeting with Ahaziah (Elias der Thisb., s. 347) is indeed captivating, but, nevertheless, entirely arbitrary.—In 2 Kings 1:17, the Sept., the Syriac version, and the Vulgata and after “Jehoram,” “his brother.” (Cf. 2 Kings 3:1, where he is called the son of Ahab.) On the date of his succession, In the second year of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, which it is extremely difficult to fix, see notes on 2 Kings 8:16. AND ETHICAL1. The reign of Jehoshaphat was a very successful and prosperous one for Judah, both internally and externally, as is clear from the detailed account of the Chronicles. The author does not enter more particularly into the details of its history, evidently because from the time of the division of the kingdom on, his main object was rather to give a representation of the monarchy in Israel until its downfall. When, however, after a more general description of the reign of Jehoshaphat, he states that that king caused ships to be built which were intended to bring gold from Ophir (1 Kings 22:48-50), that is not a disconnected statement which was inserted accidentally or arbitrarily, but it stands in immediate connection with the preceding general characterization, and supplements it in an essential point. One cannot fail to recognize that there is therein a reference back to the time of Solomon, who first established a regular commerce with Ophir, and by that, as a principal means, laid the foundation for the wealth and prosperity of his kingdom (2 Kings 9:26-28; 2 Kings 10:11; 2 Kings 10:22 sq.; 2 Chronicles 9:21 sq.). Jehoshaphat’s aim, after he had established legal order in his dominions as far as possible, reduced the neighboring peoples to subjection again, and concluded peace with the brother kingdom, was to restore those times of prosperity, and to bring his realm up to the height of that of Solomon once more. The glory of the kingdom, however, as it had existed under Solomon, was, according to the purpose of God, forever gone by (see 1 Kings 12; Histor. § 2). Its return was not a part of the divine plan of salvation, and every human attempt to restore it must necessarily fail. The fleet of Jehoshaphat went down in the harbor of Ezion-geber, even before it had sailed out, and that, too, not by human fault, but by a storm, that is to say, by a dispensation of God. 2. As regards his relation to Jehovah, which was the main point for every Israelitish king, Ahaziah was one of the very worst of them. This is marked, in the general description, by the fact that it is said of him, not only that “he did evil in the sight of the Lord,” and “walked in the ways of Jeroboam,” but that it is also added, “in the way of his father,” nay even also (which is observed of no other king), “in the way of his mother,” the fanatical, idolatrous, and bloodthirsty Jezebel, who was still living, and perhaps controlled him even more than she had controlled his father. All the acts of God during the reign of his father, of which he had been eye-witness and ear-witness, the proofs of God’s power, long-suffering, and justice, even the tragical end of Ahab, had made no impression upon him. All had passed by him, and left no effect behind. For this very reason, then, in the first place, he is worse than Ahab. That he surpassed him in his alienation from Jehovah became apparent at the approach of his early death. So far from being brought to his senses by the unfortunate accident which ultimately caused his death, and seeking refuge in the God of his fathers, he sent messengers to a foreign divinity to seek counsel and help from him. He thereby transgressed not only the general and chief commandment (Exodus 20:3), but also the special commandment (Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:6; Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-11), which threatened with extermination those who questioned soothsayers and wizards. That was a public and practical declaration that he esteemed the Fly-god of the Philistines above the living God of Israel; and it was a formal degradation and contempt, even an insult, of the latter. Such a crime had not previously been committed by a king, and, if ever, then certainly now, the time was come for the zealous defender of the name of the God of Israel to “break forth like a fire” (Sir 48:1) from his concealment, and to announce to the bold scoffer the divine retribution. Even this terrible announcement, however, was not sufficient to humble the dying man or to bring him to repentance; it rather embittered him and filled him with anger, and even with plans of murder. He sends out a band of myrmidons, in order to get possession of the person of the prophet, and when these meet with a frightful fate, he does not even yet recognize in it the hand of the Almighty, but, with a display of impotent stubbornness, sends out a new hand of men. But neither does the destruction of this company also bend his hard and stubborn disposition; he sends out a third time a band of soldiers. All this he does while on his death-bed, face to face with death, so completely has all reverence for what is sacred abandoned him, and been supplanted by a stubbornness and wilfulness which extends even to madness. Ahab even had bowed himself and humbled himself (1 Kings 21:27) when Elijah announced to him the judgment of God; Jeroboam even sent, when his son was sick, to the prophet Ahijah (1 Kings 14:2); but Ahaziah perseveres in his senseless perversity, and so falls far below both of these. At last, however, he is obliged to hear his condemnation from the mouth of the prophet, when he is, as it were, bound hand and foot, and only death overcomes his stubborn heart. 3. The Prophet Elijah appears in general here, just as he always has up to this point, as the ἀνὴρπροφήτηςδυνατὸςἐνἔργῳ καὶ ἐνλόγῳ (cf. Luke 24:19). He steps forth suddenly from obscurity, “as it were borne on by the storm, with his fiery strength and his fiery tongue” (Ewald). His weighty, irresistible personality, and his forcible, energetic speech, make such an impression on the messengers of the king, who do not know him (2 Kings 1:8), that they do not dare to carry out the orders of their despotic master, but turn back without further action. As always, so also here, “when they sought to seize him and make him a prisoner, he was not to be reached;” the emissaries came to disgrace. Without fear, courageous and unterrified, he appears before the king himself, as he had once done before his father, and announces to the fixed and stubborn man his approaching death. Moreover, in this case, where he has to deal with apostasy in its extremest form, one side of his peculiar calling and position in the historical development of the plan of salvation comes into especial relief, namely, the function of avenging judge. As the second Moses, and second founder of the broken covenant, it was his task, before all else, to bear witness, both by word and deed, to the wrath and fiery jealousy of God against anything idolatrous (see above, the Historical notes on 1 Kings 17 § 1). He is the representative and instrument of the jealousy of the divine Judge, the herald of the divine retributive justice, and on that account the prototype of all the forerunners of the great and terrible day of judgment (Malachi 4:5); so that Sirach (Sir 48:10), at the end of his eulogy of him, says: ὁ καταγραφεὶςἐνἐλεγμοῖςεἰςκαιροὺςκοπάσαιὀργὴνπρὸ θυμοῦ. It is characteristic that Elijah finishes his public activity, which had been directed against apostasy, by an act in the capacity of a judge, and thereby seals, as it were, the position which he occupies in the history of salvation. 4. The two leaders who perish, together with their soldiers, are not to be considered “simply as tools of a will which opposed itself to Jehovah;” so that “the question whether their fate was a just punishment or not is an idle one” (Thenius). On the contrary, they participated in the feelings of their master (συμβαίνοντεςτῷ σκοπῷ τοῦ πεπομφότος, says Theodoret justly), as is seen from the fact that they, as faithful myrmidons of their abandoned master, scoff at the greatest of all prophets, whom they, too, know to be such. They despised in him the holy and almighty God of Israel, whose servant he was. The third captain was also a “tool” of the king; but he did not share in his feelings, and was spared just on that account. Whereas in his case the address, “Man of God,” was an expression of conviction and respect, it had been conscious, intentional, and insolent contempt in the mouth of both the others. They are representatives of the apparent power of the apostate, godless monarchy, which seeks to oppose the divine purpose by human power, and which, when it has already experienced the uselessness of opposition, nevertheless still perseveres in its criminal obstinacy, until it proves its own impotence, and then finally perishes. That was destined to hold good here, which Moses once said in a similar case: “And in the greatness of thine excellency thou hast overthrown those that rose up against thee: thou sentest forth thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble” (Exodus 15:7); and also what Isaiah prophesied of the astrologers, &c., of Babylon: “Behold they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame.” 5. The conduct of Elijah towards the captains has given offence on the supposition of their innocence, and has been made a ground of blame against the prophet. Winer (R.-W.-B. i. s. 318) fails to find the “moral” of it, and Ewald (Geschichte Israels, iii. s. 546; 3d ed., s. 588) sees in this action a proof that this narrative springs from a much later time than the other ones about Elijah, i.e., from a time when the history of the prophet had been expanded beyond the limits which had been observed earlier, and had been moulded in more and more gigantic proportions, and in a much stiffer manner; so that “one might almost say that a Brahminic-Indian legend upon the acts of some Jogin had been produced from it.” Even in earlier times it seems to have been believed that Christ, at least indirectly, expressed disapproval of Elijah (Luke 9:55) when he rebuked (ἐπετίμησε) his disciples who wished to do ὡςκαὶ ’Ηλίαςἐποίησε, so that these words are omitted in some otherwise important manuscripts, and in the Vulgata, in order not to endanger the reputation of the prophet. This view rests, however, upon an entire misconception of the narrative before us, and of the relation between the economy of the Old and the New Testaments. For we have here not the act of revenge of a prophet who was instigated by personal jealousy, but an act of divine judgment, and a revelation of God’s wrath against all godlessness and wickedness of men, who “hold the truth in unrighteousness” [restrain the truth in a spirit of unrighteousness]. (Romans 1:18; Romans 2:5). All judgments of God are represented in the Old Testament as a consuming fire (Numbers 11:1; Numbers 16:35; Deuteronomy 32:22; Psalms 21:9 sq.; Isaiah 26:11; Ezekiel 15:6-7; Job 20:26, &c). He himself even, in His retributive justice, is called a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24; Deuteronomy 9:3; cf. Hebrews 12:29; Hebrews 10:27). It is, therefore, perfectly in accordance with the concrete and literal character which the Old Testament economy bears throughout, that this actual fire should be the form of revelation of the divine wrath, so that in many places we can hardly distinguish whether it is intended to be taken literally or figuratively. Just as once the rebellious host of Koran was consumed by fire, and so Moses’ authority, as the servant of God, was ratified (Numbers 16:35), so the scoffing band of the idolatrous Ahaziah perished, and thereby the second Moses was corroborated as the man of God. As an act of divine judgment this catastrophe lacks “moral” so little that it is rather a revelation of the highest moral intensity—a testimony to the unchangeable justice and holiness of God. Whoever finds it shocking must be still more shocked at the prophetic declaration—“God is jealous and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies. Who can stand before His indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of His anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by Him” (Nahum 1:2-6). Christ does not blame Elijah, but His disciples, because in their dissatisfaction, which was just enough in itself, they did not distinguish between the time of Elijah and the time which had begun with Him, the promised Son of Man and σωτήρ, and entirely mistook Him, that is to say, His calling and station in the plan of redemption, as contrasted with that of Elijah. Menken remarks on the passage before us: “Any one who is acquainted, even in a slight degree, with the theocratical constitution of Israel; any one who sees how necessary such acts of God and of His prophets were, for the confusion and overthrow of idol-worship, and for the foundation and conservation of the knowledge and adoration of the one sole living God; any one who has a genuine love to God, and a zeal that the name of God shall be kept holy upon earth: such an one will not be repelled by this action of God and His prophet. Many, however, with whom this is not the case, who, themselves indifferent towards God and His kingdom, would gladly have all dispositions of men towards God regarded as insignificant, have been repelled by it; they have imputed to the prophet therein a carnal and unholy violence, and an angry-spirited and revengeful jealousy, and have blamed him accordingly.…. Elijah might do much which was not becoming for Jesus the suffering Lamb of God.…. In his position and in his time he had to be rather terrible and grand than mild and lovely; he had to punish, condemn, and revenge, rather than to teach, forgive, and console.…. His calling was to be, not a fire to warm, but a consuming flame against unrighteousness and godlessness.” 6. To try to explain and do away with what is miraculous in this narrative is vain labor, as it is in other and similar cases. The naturalistic explanation, which points to lightning or the fiery wind-simoom, or to a forcible scattering of the troops by the numerous “sons [disciples] of the prophets” (Exeget. Handbuch on the passage), has indeed been abandoned; but, on the other hand, the entire story has been explained as mythical or legendary, and reference has been made to “parallel passages in the classics.” “When the Persians advance against the temple at Delphi, lightnings descend from heaven upon them (Herod. viii. 37); and when the Gauls under Brennus are going to storm Delphi, there occurs an earthquake with storm and hail, whereby great destruction is caused among them (Justin. xxiv. 8).” The legend “expresses only the general idea that the Divinity protects His favorites at all times, even by unusual means, and hears their prayers even when they ask for what is extraordinary” (Knobel, Prophet. der Hebrδer, ii. s. 82; Rφdiger, Hall. Encyc., i. 33, s. 322). This view fails utterly to perceive, in the first place, that the thing to be accomplished here is a judgment upon the apostate and stubborn king and his emissaries, and that the protection which is given to Elijah is only a subordinate matter. What necessity was there then for just such a judgment, if nothing more was to be expressed by it than this general idea, which might have been affirmed in a hundred other ways? What parallel there is, finally, between the Persians and Gauls who advanced against Delphi, and perished by lightning and earthquake, and the soldiers whom Ahaziah sent out against Elijah, it is difficult to see, for one might as well find parallels to this narrative in all the accidents wherein men have perished, while on the way hither and thither, by lightning or earthquake. AND 1 Kings 22:41-50. Wόrtb. Summ.: All Christian rulers and governors ought to follow the example of the pious king Jehoshaphat—to do what is pleasing to God, to walk in His ways without departing from them, to maintain and extend pure religion, to remove and destroy what is evil, and especially not to permit whoredom, but with earnestness to do away with it and punish it, and to guard themselves from having too much intercourse with godless persons, or from entering into any covenant with them, because this leads to no good, as indeed Jehoshaphat got only danger and loss by it. Every one should profit by the life-experience of Jehoshaphat. All that he undertook according to God’s word and will went on fortunately and attained good success, and was attended with blessing; but all that he undertook in conjunction with Ahab and Ahaziah turned out unfortunately: there was no blessing upon that. 1 Kings 22:44-47. See notes on 2 Kings 15:12; 2 Kings 15:14. 1 Kings 22:49. The heart of man proposes its own way, but the Lord alone allows it to proceed therein. (Proverbs 16:9.) He often confounds our purposes and destroys our plans, which reach so far and so high, that we may not become puffed up, but learn to yield to His holy will and to say: “It is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth Him good” (1 Samuel 3:18). 1 Kings 22:50. What God has clearly destroyed, as a punishment, that let us not build up again at the counsel or demand of any man; for, when He breaks in pieces, it cannot avail to build again (Job 12:14).—So Jehoshaphat would not build again. The offers of a man who had departed from God, even if he offer thee ever so much profit and pleasantness, do thou reject with determined will; for “what is a man profited,” &c. (Matthew 16:26.) 1 Kings 22:51-53. Starke: It is bad enough indeed when one or the other of one’s parents is godless, but how much more when neither fears God? How can we hope for the good nurture of children in that case? The power of example is not greater in any relation than in that of parents to children. The way in which the father or mother walks has more influence upon the children than all the doctrines and teachings which they give them.—Wόrtb. Summ.: It is not praiseworthy, nor a thing which one can satisfactorily answer for before God, if the parents and ancestors have been godless or the adherents of a false religion, that the children should do the same and follow in their footsteps;.… it will not suffice before God to say: “I believe what my parents and ancestors believed. They were of this religion, and I will not believe that they have been damned.” 2 Kings 1:2-8. Wirth: King Ahaziah on his deathbed, (a) The sending to Ekron; (b) the message of the prophet. 2 Kings 1:2-4. Krummacher: The journey to Ekron. (a) The seeking for refuge in Ekron; (b) the jealousy of God; (c) Jesus the only refuge (in Him rests our confidence and strength). 2 Kings 1:2-17. In Ahaziah we see the folly of godlessness (Psalms 14:1-2). (a) In the dark valley, in which he must journey, he seizes, not upon the staff and support which could comfort him (Psalms 23:4), but upon a stalk of straw; he makes a work of man’s hands his consolation in life and in death; that is the height of folly. (b) He will hear nothing of death, and hates and persecutes him who reminds him of death; death comes, however; it is inevitable. To avoid every thought of death, and to escape from everything which may remind us of it, is the greatest folly, for we must all depart sometime (Psalms 39:5), and appear before Him who will give to each according to his deeds (Romans 2:6). (c) He sends soldiers against the prophet who announces to him the judgment of God, and thinks that he can thereby set aside the judgment itself. But to attempt to do away with the truth of God, and to accomplish something perforce against the decision of God by means of human power and might, is the greatest folly. 2 Kings 1:1-2. God does not leave himself without a witness even in the case of those who have long ago abandoned Him and turned their backs upon Him. He seeks with all labor and care to call them home. Well is it for them, then, if they understand the testimony, and do not, like Ahaziah, become still more stubborn. 2 Kings 1:2. If a man has once torn himself away from the living God and His Word, he does not, as infidelity pretends, become wiser and more enlightened, but only too often he becomes the prey of the most insipid and foolish superstition. How many do not believe in an holy, omniscient, and just God, to whom they must give an account of all they do and leave undone, but on the contrary in ghosts, or in the word of a gypsy, and seize upon the most senseless means in need and sickness. It is possible to so lose God that one does not find Him even when face to face with death.—Krummacher: Instead of the oracle at Ekron we have to-day clairvoyants and mesmerists; and even if we do not have soothsayers and persons who foretell by cards (the number of whom, however, among the common people, is far greater than is commonly believed), still there are “signs” and dreams upon which people trust, and on which they rest the peace of their hearts, as if it were upon oracles from idols.… While people smile at the magicians of earlier times, and their arts, with a mien of superiority, they are not ashamed to take refuge in all sorts of amulets, or to expect help now from this and now from that sympathetic cure.…. Is that not “going to Ekron?” [Comprehensive Commentary: The inquiry of Ahaziah “was very foolish. We should be more thoughtful of our duty than our fortune, what will become of us after death, than how, or when, or where, we shall die; and more desirous to be told how to conduct ourselves well in sickness, and get good to our souls by it, than whether we shall recover.”] 2 Kings 1:3. Wόrtb. Summ.: All those who make use of formulζ of blessing or other irregular means, in sickness, seek help from Baal-zebub. God has given an example in the case of Ahaziah, how angry He is at this, and how severely He means to punish such idolatry.—Is it then because, &c. Wirth: The men of our time run hither and thither in their dissatisfaction and need of help. Is there then no longer any God in our nineteenth century, that men do not take refuge in Him? Is there then no Gospel, which is the power of God, and a light upon our pathway? Is there then no longer a Saviour Jesus Christ, who calls: “behold, I make all things new?”—The Word of God is the sole, true, and correct oracle, which we are to question, and to take counsel of, in every circumstance of life, and in all darkness and doubt. This generation, however, seeks light, wisdom, and truth among the Philistines, the wise and prudent of this world, who give out that the Word of the Lord is an old and unreliable book which no longer satisfies the existing grade of cultivation. [“They that will not inquire of the Word of God for their comfort shall be made to hear it, whether they will or no, to their amazement.”]—That ye go, &c. Who-soever lends himself to be the messenger and servant of superstition, and of contempt for God, makes himself a participant in the guilt of them; we must obey God rather than man. 2 Kings 1:4-8. If the messengers had brought to the king a declaration of the Fly-god, he would have accepted it with faith, but he rejected the word of the prophet because it did not conform to his wishes; nay, it even filled him with anger and plans of murder. Men value the falsehood which flatters their inclinations and wishes, higher than the truth which corrects them and demands sacrifices and penitence of them. 2 Kings 1:7-8. He who preaches penitence, conversion, sacrifice, and self-denial, to others, but still shows by all his conduct and external behavior, that he himself loves the world, and what is in the world, and that he is not above the world, such an one belongs to the false prophets, with whom we must be upon our guard. 2 Kings 1:9-17. Krummacher: The sermon in fire. (a) Ahaziah’s attack upon Elijah; (b) the prophet’s victory; (c) Ahaziah’s end.—Wirth: Elijah as messenger of the judgment of God. (a) The annihilation of the two fifties; (b) the sparing of the third fifty; (c) a visit to the sick-bed.—The judgment of God upon Ahaziah and his troops an image of the great and terrible day of the Lord (see the Historical section) for the warning of all scoffers and stubborn contemners of God.—Elijah in truth a Man of God. (a) How he sustains himself in that position in his relations to God (viz., by faithful obedience and faithful courage); (b) how God sustains him in it in relation to his enemies (viz., by powerful protection, and by the annihilation of his enemies, Psalms 91:1 sq.), 2 Kings 1:9. Every servant of the Lord who is really earnest in his office must make up his mind that rude, low, and godless men will scorn him and name him “Man of God” in mockery. Although no fire from heaven falls down to destroy them, yet the word of the Lord stands firm for all time: “He that despiseth you,” &c. (Luke 10:16), and the Lord will not leave those unpunished who despise Him in His servants, and exercise their wit upon the calling of reconciliation (Isaiah 41:10-11).—Great rulers always find people who will lend themselves as instruments of their perverted will, who execute, with exactness and without scruple, what “the king says,” but do not trouble themselves at all about what God says. 2 Kings 1:11 sq. Hall: It is the sure sign of approaching ruin when men will not allow themselves to be warned. Those deserve only to be made examples of punishment who will not take warning from the example of others. 2 Kings 1:13 sq. God does not let anything be forced from Him by pertinacity, but to the humble He grants grace. That which can never be gained by perseverance and resistance, is reached by earnest, humble, and sincere prayer.—Osiander: If we perform our duty, God has the hearts of men in His hand in such a way that He leads them whither He will. So it often happens that those who seek to kill us in our absence, in our presence dare not open their mouths (John 7:44-46). 2 Kings 1:15-16. A minister of God must not fear to hold up their sins before sinners and scoffers upon the death-bed, and to draw their attention to the judgment of God, in order that, if possible, even in the last hour, they may come to a knowledge of that which belongs to their peace, for (Ezekiel 33:8-9), to offer eternal blessedness to the rich and great, instead of calling them to repentance, is the worst transgression of a prophet.—To conceal the approach of his end from one who is sick unto death, and to hold all thoughts of it from him, or even to console him with false hopes of recovery, is no genuine love; for no man can be properly prepared for death who does not think of it often and much. He who in days of health has often, in the presence of God, thought upon death, does not shrink before the message: “Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.” (Isaiah 38:1.) 2 Kings 1:9-16. Elijah and the Disciples of Jesus who wish to imitate Him (Luke 9:51-57). (a) The reason why He blames and rebukes them; (b) whereto He calls and encourages them (see Historical, § 5). Footnotes: [The correct translation of ιδεδ, rendered in our version by Lord, would be The Eternal. This may be regarded as a standing correction.] 2 Kings 1:11.—The Sept. [Cod. Alex.] have here καὶ ἀνέβη, καὶ ἐλάλησεν, so that they read εַ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?μ for εַ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?ο. Thenius and Keil adopt this reading, citing 2 Kings 1:9; 2 Kings 1:13. 2 Kings 1:12.—[Sept. for ΰֲ ?μֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν, πρὸςαὐτόν, a necessary emendation. 2 Kings 1:13.—[ωְׁ ?μִ ?ωִׁ ?ι must be read for ωְׁ ?μִ ?ωִׁ ?ιν with Thenius and Keil. 2 Kings 1:15.—[ΰεֹ ?ϊεֹ has the form of the accusative sign with suffix, instead of ΰִ ?ϊּ ?εֹ the preposition. The distinction is not observed in the later language. Ewald, Lehrbuch d. hebr. Spr. § 264, b. and Ges. § 103, 1. R. 1.—The suffix in ξִ ?τָּ ?πָ ?ιε refers to the king.—W. G. S.] B.—Elijah’s departure and Elisha’s first appearance as Prophet2 Kings 2:1-251 And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal. 2And Elijah said unto Elisha, Tarry here, I pray thee; for the Lord hath sent me to Beth-el. And Elisha said unto him, As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. So they went down to Beth-el. 3And the sons [pupils] of the prophets that were at Beth-el came forth to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Lord will take away thy master from thy head to-day? And he said, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace. 4And Elijah said unto him, Elisha, tarry here, I pray thee; for the Lord hath sent me to Jericho. And he said, As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. So they came to Jericho. 5And the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho came to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Lord will take away thy master from thy head to-day? And he answered, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace. 6And Elijah said unto him, Tarry, I pray thee, here; for the Lord hath sent me to Jordan. And he said, As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. And they two went on. 7And fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood to view [over against them] afar off: and they two stood by Jordan. 8And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together, and smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground. 9And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me. 10And he said, Thou hast asked a hard thing [to obtain, Bδhr]: nevertheless, if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if not, it shall not be so. 11And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into [towards] heaven. And Elisha saw it, 12and he cried, My father, my father, the [thou, omit the] chariot of Israel, and the [omit the] horsemen thereof! And he saw him no more: and so he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces. 13[Then] He took up also [omit also] the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan; 14And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the Lord God of Elijah [even He]? And when he also [omit also] had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went o2 Kings 2 Kings 2:15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view [omit to view] at Jericho saw him [from the opposite side], they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him. 16And they said unto him, behold now, there be with thy servants fifty strong men; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master: lest peradventure the Spirit of the Lord hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley.2 And he said, Ye shall not send. 17And when they urged him till he was ashamed [to refuse them, Bδhr], he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not. 18And when they came again to him, (for he tarried at Jericho,) he said unto them, Did I not say unto you, Go not? 19And the men of the city said unto Elisha, Behold, I pray thee, the situation [inhabiting] of this city is pleasant, as my lord seeth: but the water is naught 20[bad], and the ground barren [the locality causes barrenness].3 And he said, Bring me a new cruse, and put salt therein. And they brought it to him. 21And he went forth unto the spring of the waters, and cast the salt in there, and said, Thus saith the Lord, I have healed these waters; there shall not be from thence any more death or barren land [barrenness, omit land]. 22So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake. 23And he went up from thence unto Beth-el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children [young persons] out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. 25And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria. AND 2 Kings 2:1. And it came to pass, when, &c. The following event certainly belongs to the time after the death of Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:17), and probably to the beginning of the reign of Jehoram, for in the 19th verse the public activity of Elisha begins, i.e., that is the time when he stepped into the place of Elijah, and stood at the head of the prophets. The war with the Moabites, in which Elisha assumes so important a position (cf. chap. 3), must have begun soon after Jehoram’s succession to the throne (2 Kings 1:1). The letter which came into the hands of Jehoram from Elijah, according to 2 Chronicles 21:12, proves nothing to the contrary (see below, Historical, § 3, b).—On αְּ ?δַ ?ςֲ ?μεֹ ?ϊ see notes on 2 Kings 2:11. The first half of the verse forms the title of the entire passage.—Gilgal cannot here be a place between Jericho and the Jordan (Joshua 4:19; Joshua 5:10), for Elijah and Elisha went down from there to Bethel (εַ ?ιֵּ ?ψְ ?γεּ), and came from Bethel to Jericho. It is rather, as in Deuteronomy 11:30, the place known now as Jiljilia, which was on an elevated site, southwest of Seilun (Shiloh), near to the road leading from the latter place to Jericho (cf. Thenius and Keil on the passage; Raumer, Palδst. s. 155). This Gilgal, which lay in Ephraim, and not the one in Judah, is the one referred to also by the prophets Amos (2 Kings 4:4) and Hosea (2 Kings 4:15) who mention it, together with Bethel, as chief seat of the false worship of Jehovah. Probably it was precisely on this account that schools of the prophets were founded there, which should counteract the error. 2 Kings 2:2. And Elijah said, &c. It was known not only to Elijah himself (2 Kings 2:9), but also to Elisha (2 Kings 2:3), and to the “sons of the prophets” at Bethel and Jericho (2 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 2:5), that the time of his departure was come. Evidently the object of his visit to the three schools of the prophets, one after another, was to see them once more before his departure, and to warn and strengthen them. Keil, following the older expositors, says: “The Lord had revealed to both (Elijah and Elisha) that the seal of the divine ratification should be set to the work of Elijah by his miraculous translation to heaven,.… but to each of them separately, so that Elijah did not surmise that Elisha was aware that he was to be taken away. For this reason he wished to separate himself from his servant, not in order to test his love and attachment (Vatablus), but from humility (Corn. a Lapide, and others). He did not wish to have any witness of his glorification, without being fully satisfied that such was the divine will.… His ascension had been revealed to the disciples of the prophets also…. He took this road (to Bethel and Jericho) by the direction of the Divine Spirit,.… without supposing that they (the disciples of the prophets in those places) had been informed of his approaching departure from this life by the Spirit of God. God had revealed it to so many in order that they might be established in their calling by the miraculous glorification of their master, still more than by his words and teachings and warnings.” But the most important considerations are opposed to this very common conception of the passage. In the first place, the assertion that a divine revelation had given, not only to Elijah, but also to Elisha, and to the disciples of the prophets at Bethel and Jericho, information of the approaching ascension of the first, is a pure hypothesis: the text knows nothing of it, and even any remote hint of it is wanting. To pass over that, however, in the second place, no analogy can be found in the Scriptures for any such thing as that different persons, nay, even entire communities, in different places, at one and the same time, received the same divine revelation; and no one of these persons surmised that the same thing had happened to others. Thirdly, the disciples of the prophets at Jericho would never have urged so perseveringly upon Elisha, after his return, to allow fifty men to seek for the departed master on the mountains and in the valleys (2 Kings 2:16-18), if they had been informed in regard to Elijah’s ascension into heaven by a divine revelation. We are therefore compelled to conceive of the event, we might almost say, more simply and naturally. As concerns Elijah himself, he knew, of course, that the time of his departure was come, and that the Lord was going to take him away; the manner in which he would be taken, however, he did not know, nor did he say a syllable about it; especially he did not know, as Krummacher affirms, that “the horses of fire and the chariot of flame were already standing behind the clouds ready to come for him,” and that he “should ride, in a few days, past Orion and the Pleiades, on a gleaming road, far above the sun and the moon, and away through the veil into the divine sanctuary.” Still less did Elisha and the disciples of the prophets know it. In the 3d and 5th verses the latter only say that “now” (δַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν does not mean here “to-day,” but as in 1 Samuel 12:17; 2 Kings 4:8; Job 1:6, at this time) Elijah is going to be taken away from them and from Elisha; even this they could only know from Elijah himself. For Elijah had no reason for wishing to conceal his departure from Elisha; on the contrary, he must have felt himself driven to make it known to him, since Elisha was now to step into his place and be his successor. Neither did he conceal it from the disciples of the prophets; for his visit to them had for its chief object to take leave of them. He simply did not wish that his departure should be much spoken of, and still less would he permit that any one should be a witness of it; therefore he urged Elisha himself to remain behind. This he did, however, not “from humility,” in view of his approaching glorification, but “because he was uncertain whether it was agreeable to God that Elisha should go with him; cf. 2 Kings 2:10” (Thenius). Only when Elisha would not allow himself to be held back, and had declared earnestly three times over (cf. the similar triple repetition, John 21:15 sq.) that he would not leave him until the final moment—only when he had thus stood the trial of his unchangeable fidelity and perseverance, and thus maintained himself as competent and fit to carry on the office of prophet, did Elijah yield his scruples, and allow Elisha to accompany him. (Cf. in general on the verse the apt remarks of Vilmar, Pastoraltheol. Blδtter, 1862, s. 234.) 2 Kings 2:3. And the sons of the Prophets…. came forth, &c. [The αְּ ?πֵ ?ιΞδַ ?πְּ ?αִ ?ιΰִ ?ιν are the pupils or disciples of the prophets; not necessarily their sons in a literal sense, though they probably were such in very many cases.—W. G. S.] This does not mean: “In Bethel, the disciples of the prophets came to meet Elisha, with the information, ‘Knowest thou?’ &c.” (Keil), but that after Elijah had come with Elisha to Bethel (2 Kings 2:2), in order to take his leave there also, the disciples of the prophets came forth with them, that is, accompanied them, and said to Elisha: “Dost thou also ponder,” &c.? In like manner they were accompanied by those of Jericho (ver 7). [This explanation does violence to the meaning of the preposition ΰֶ ?μ, which never contains any idea of accompaniment, above all with a verb of motion; moreover, 2 Kings 2:7 is not the parallel, but 2 Kings 2:5. εַ ?ιֵּ ?φΰεּ ΰֶ ?μ can only mean “They came forth to” (cf. Genesis 19:6), and it is stated that they came forth to “Elisha,” which certainly seems to imply that they already had heard of the expected event. ζַ ?ιִּ ?βְּ ?ωׁ ?εּ ΰֶ ?μ, 2 Kings 2:5. is less certain. It might mean that as they were all standing in a group, and after Elijah had declared that he had come to them for the last time, some of them approached Elisha. The objection taken to the theory of independent revelations is, however, a just one, and must be maintained, even if we cannot fix definitely the details of the occurrence which the words refer to. Many hypotheses suggest themselves, as, for instance, that Elijah went on to the schools of the prophets in the first place alone, and that they then “came forth to Elisha.”—W. G. S.] μָ ?χַ ?ηξֵ ?ςַ ?μψֹ ?ΰωֶׁ ?κָ, according to Keil, “expresses graphically the removal from his side by elevation into heaven.” Thenius also says, following Bφttcher: “Nihil aliud nisi viam modumque tollendi pingit: away off above thine head.” [So also Bunsen.] It is very improbable, however, in the first place, that the disciples of the prophets, at Bethel as well as at Jericho, should have expressed themselves “graphically,” independently of one another, and just on this occasion. The words ξֵ ?ςַ ?μψֹ ?ΰωֶׁ ?κָ are equivalent to ξֵ ?ςִ ?ξָּ ?κְ and ξֵ ?ΰִ ?ϊָּ ?κְ, which are used by Elijah, in 2 Kings 2:9-10, for the same idea, i.e., literally, “from with you,” the sense being “out of connection or companionship with you,” except that the first form hints at the nature of this connection more distinctly than the others. Luther, in a marginal gloss on the passage, says: “To be at the head is to be master and teacher; to be at the feet is to be pupil and subject. For when the teacher teaches he sits in a more elevated position than the pupils, so that he has them at his feet, and they have him at their head. Therefore St. Paul says (Acts 22:3), that he had learned the law at the feet of Gamaliel.” (Cf. Schφttgen, Hor. Hebr. on this passage.) Elisha is the disciple of Elijah; the latter is his “master,” as he is called here. The words, “The Lord will take away thy master from thy head,” do not therefore mean, He will cause Elijah to arise away above thy head towards heaven, but, He will take him away from thy head, i.e., break up the relationship which has existed hitherto between you, as pupil and master, and as thy chief thou wilt lose him. (ξֵ ?ςַ ?μ is used as in Genesis 48:17; Amos 7:11.) When the words are thus taken, each gets its full force, and it is easy to see why both the disciples at Bethel and those at Jericho put the question to Elisha, “Knowest thou?” &c. The separation touched Elisha nearest of all, and was more important for him than for any of the rest. The question signifies: Knowest and considerest thou also, that thou wilt now lose the master whose servant and disciple thou art (1 Kings 19:21)? What will become of us when thy guide and ours is gone? The answer of Elisha, which would otherwise be obscure and difficult, is then appropriate to this question: “Yea, I know it,” i.e., Alas! I know it and consider it well, even as ye do. When he then adds, “Hold ye your peace,” he does not mean to say: Tell no one that he is now going to ascend into heaven, in order that there may be no concourse of people (Clericus, J. Lange), nor: Speak no further of it, for Elijah, on account of his modesty and humility, does not wish that much should be said of his glorification (Seb. Smith, Keil), but: Compose yourselves, yield to the will of Jehovah; do not sadden my heart now that I am about to lose my beloved master and lord. [Bunsen.] 2 Kings 2:7. And fifty men of the sons, &c. As Elijah and Elisha departed in the direction of the Jordan, a band of prophets followed them at a distance, and remained standing at a point (probably on an elevation) from which they could see “whether and in what way the departing ones would get over the Jordan at a place where there was no arrangement for crossing” (Hess, Thenius); that is to say, they followed, out of sympathy and anxiety, and not “that they might be eyewitnesses of the removal of their master” (Keil), for, according to 2 Kings 2:10, it was not certain that even Elisha, who accompanied him, would see this. They were witnesses only of that which is narrated in 2 Kings 2:8. The manner of crossing the Jordan must have reminded them involuntarily of Exo 14:16 (cf. Joshua 4:23). As once Moses struck the water and divided it, in the presence of the whole people, with his staff, which was the insigne of his office as teacher, and is called the “rod of God” (Exodus 17:9), whereby he was confirmed and accredited as chief, so Elijah, the second Moses, here strikes the water, and divides it in the presence of the band of the prophets, with his mantle, the sign of his prophetical calling (1 Kings 19:19), an action which confirms him, before the disciples of the prophets, just as he is leaving them, in his position as chief of the prophets. He folds or rolls the mantle together, possibly in order to give it at the same time the appearance of a staff, for in other cases the water is always struck with a staff (Isaiah 11:4; Isaiah 10:24; Numbers 20:11). [The first two passages cited refer to a beating with a rod as punishment or correction, and the third to the smiting of the rock to make water come out. There is no ground for supposing that the words in the text have any further significance than such a folding as would make the mantle convenient to handle in smiting the water.—W. G. S.] However, the very fact that he makes use of the prophet’s mantle instead of making use of the staff, makes the action a distinctly prophetical, i.e., symbolical one. The miraculous power is no more attached, in any magical way, to the mantle than to the staff; but it is the prophetical calling which God has armed with such power for the attainment of His ends, as was shown immediately afterwards in the case of the successor and representative of Elijah (cf. 2 Kings 2:14; 2 Kings 2:19 sq.). 2 Kings 2:9. And it came to pass when they were gone over, &c. The command of Elijah: “Ask,” &c., and the reply of Elisha, “Let a double portion,” &c., are to be explained by their relation to one another, which was not so much that of a master to his servant or of a teacher to his disciple, as rather that of a (spiritual) father to his son (2 Kings 2:12). Elisha had maintained his attachment, love, and fidelity to the very end, in that he would not quit Elijah; and now the latter treats him as a dying father would (Genesis 27:4), and says: “If thou hast yet any wish in thine heart, tell it to me;” he is ready to grant him the blessing of a father and of a prophet. Elisha answers as son to father: “I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me!” According to the law (Deuteronomy 21:17), the first-born son received, of what the father left behind, τִּ ?ιωְׁ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ν, i.e. two parts, twice as much as the other sons received. According to this analogy, Elisha begs that Elijah will regard him as his first-born, and will give to him, as compared with the other sons of the prophets, a richer measure of his (prophetic) spirit, that is to say, of that ψεּ ?ηַ, which is the condition of all prophetical activity, whether in word or deed, and which is not only a spirit of knowledge and wisdom, but also of strength and power (Isaiah 11:2). The translation of the words of Elisha, “That thy spirit may be doubled in me.” (Luther, following the Sept. and Vulg.), is unquestionably false. Still this interpretation is found again and again in modern expositions. Krummacher even asserts, as a result of this interpretation, that the spirit of Elisha, as an evangelical (?) spirit, was certainly twice as great as the spirit of Elijah, which was Mosaic and legal. If this had been the prayer of Elisha, however, it would have been, not only in the highest degree immodest, but also incomprehensible, since Elijah could not give more than he himself had. Elisha did not wish to be more or greater than his master and lord. He only desired so much as was necessary for him, in order that he might be that to which Elijah had destined him, namely, the one who should succeed to his place as leader of the prophets. Menken’s interpretation of the words of Elijah is also a mistake, i.e., that Elisha should give him a commission for the other world, and beg for himself some service there, where the Lord would not refuse Elijah any request he might make on behalf of his faithful servant. Not to notice other objections, Elijah says: “Ask what I can do for you before I be taken away,” and not when I am in heaven. Neither can this place, therefore, by any means be cited as a support of the Roman Catholic dogma of the effectual mediation of the saints in heaven, as is often done.—Elijah means to say, by the words in 2 Kings 2:10 : Thou hast prayed for something which it is not in my power, nor in that of any man, to give, but only in the power of God; if it is granted to thee alone, of all the sons of the prophets, to remain with me until my removal, and to be a witness of it, then thou mayest know, by this fact, that thou art to continue the prophetical work, which I have begun, and which I must now abandon, and then shalt thou also receive that measure of the prophetical spirit of which thou hast need for this work. 2 Kings 2:11. And it came to pass, as they still went on, &c. The verse is generally translated as it is by Luther, “Behold! there came a chariot of fire and horses of fire,.… and so Elijah rode, in a whirlwind, towards heaven.” This is then understood to mean, that a fiery chariot with fiery horses attached to it came, and that it received Elijah and took him to heaven. According to that, Elijah really “rode” into heaven, as indeed we find it often represented, especially in pictures. This conception of the event has struck such deep root that people scarcely inquire whether the text really justifies it or not. It is especially welcome to those who explain the story of Elijah as myth and poetry, because, as they think, such an ascension would remove all doubt as to the mythical character of the narrative. Here it is necessary, before all else, to take the words of the text accurately, and not to add or fill out anything which is not absolutely demanded. In the first place, the text knows nothing whatever of a fiery chariot, with fiery horses attached, but only says: “Behold! chariot of fire and horses of fire!” Then it does not say that Elijah mounted into this literal chariot, as it is supposed to be, and rode in it towards heaven, but the ςָ ?μָ ?δ took place “in a whirlwind” (αַּ ?ρְ ?ςָ ?ψָ ?δ), and not in the chariot. Still further δַ ?ωָּׁ ?ξָ ?ιִ ?ν does not mean: up into heaven, but: towards or in the direction of heaven, heavenwards; especially when it is used with ςָ ?μָ ?δ (Judges 20:40; Psalms 107:26; Jeremiah 51:53). Finally, ςָ ?μָ ?δ is not ride, but go up, in the sense of disappear [like the German aufgehen, it is used in the sense of come to an end, disappear, be consumed.—W. G. S.], see Judges 20:40 : “The entire city [E. V. has, incorrectly, “the flame of the city”] ςָ ?μָ ?δδַ ?ωָּׁ ?ξָ ?ιְ ?ξָ ?δ, arose towards heaven, i.e., disappeared, was consumed by the fire. Also, Ezekiel 11:24 : “So the vision that I had seen (εַ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?μ) went up from me,” i.e., it disappeared (Vulg.: et sublata est a me visio); it was taken away. In the hifil (2 Kings 2:1) it means exactly tollere, auferre, take away, as, for instance, in Psalms 102:25 : “Take me away in the midst of my days,” cf. Job 5:26; Job 36:20; Amos 3:5. Furthermore, the word ςֹ ?μָ ?δ is the name of the burnt offering, because it, in distinction from the other sacrifices, disappears entirely—is completely consumed by the fire. The clearest proof that the word here has the signification, take away, remove, is the fact that the disciples of the prophets, as well as Elisha himself, always make use of the word μָ ?χַ ?η, and not of ςָ ?μָ ?δ, when speaking of Elijah’s removal (2 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 2:5; 2 Kings 2:9-10), and say nothing of any taking up into heaven. It is not possible, therefore, that ςָ ?μָ ?δ should signify something altogether different from μָ ?χַ ?η here. Precisely this latter word is used, Genesis 5:24, in reference to Enoch: “And he was not (εְ ?ΰֵ ?ιπֶ ?πּ ?εּ, i.e., he disappeared suddenly, and left no trace behind, Job 7:8; cf. Delitsch on Hebrews 11:5. Luther: ‘He was seen no more’); for God took him (μָ ?χַ ?η).” The removal is therefore the main point; and it is only stated here in addition—which is not done in the case of Enoch—in what way the removal took place, viz.: αַּ ?ρְ ?ςָ ?ψָ ?δ, in the whirlwind; and besides, δַ ?ωָּׁ ?ξָ ?ιִ ?ν, towards heaven. ρְ ?ςָ ?ψָ ?δ signifies not only “the rapidity of the elevation” (Thenius), but also a storm, combined with thunder, dark clouds, wind, and fire (Isaiah 29:6; Ezekiel 1:4; Ezekiel 13:11; Ezekiel 13:13; Psalms 107:25). Through such a storm, then, Elijah was separated from Elisha, and removed heavenwards. Now when Elisha sees, in this fiery storm-cloud, “chariot and horses” of fire, that does not mean to say that he saw a literal chariot and literal horses. On the contrary, he recognized, in the fiery appearance, that which “chariot and horses” signify. According to the usage of the Old Testament language, these things, as the principal means of protection and defence of a people against foreign aggression, are the representation of its might and strength, of its glory and fearfulness (cf. Isaiah 31:1 sq.; Isaiah 36:9; Exodus 14:9; Exodus 14:17; Deuteronomy 20:1; 1 Kings 10:29). They art also ascribed to Jehovah, and then they are an indication of His great might, majesty, and glory, with which He conquers and annihilates His opponents, but protects and saves His own. Thus Habakkuk: “Was thy wrath against the sea, that thou didst ride upon thine horses and thy chariots of salvation?” Also Isaiah (Isaiah 66:15): “For behold the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots, like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.” Cf. also Psalms 104:3 : “Who maketh the clouds his chariots.” That we have here also to think of the chariot and horses of Jehovah, is shown by the ΰֵ ?ωׁ which occurs with both words, for fire is the well-known form of theophany in the Old Testament (Exodus 24:17; Deuteronomy 9:3 sq.; Psalms 1:3; Isaiah 29:6; Ezekiel 1:4; Ezekiel 1:27). Just in the same manner, the servant of Elisha, after his eyes have been opened, in accordance with the prayer of the prophet (2 Kings 6:14-17), sees, opposed to the “horses and chariots” with which the Syrians had surrounded the city in which Elisha was, the whole mountain full of “horses and chariots of fire;” i.e., over-against the earthly power, he sees the infinitely greater protecting and saving might of Jehovah. The following verse (12), where Elisha calls Elijah “Chariot of Israel and Horsemen thereof,” especially supports the figurative interpretation. Recognizing the inadmissibility of the literal acceptation, which presupposes the existence of literal fiery chariots, with fiery horses attached to them, passing down from heaven and up again into heaven, in which one could ride without being burned, some expositors have understood by “chariot and horses,” as Grotius does, Angeli ea specie apparentes. “The vehicle,” says, among others, J. Lange, “or the outward sign with which Elijah rose towards heaven, was doubtless a cloud. Still, as Elijah was no doubt accompanied by an entire band of angels, as Christ was afterwards, these gave to the cloud the form of a fiery chariot and fiery horses, by virtue of the divine power and the divine will, so that the cloud took the form of a heavenly triumphant chariot.” Similarly Menken says that Elijah “was taken up by the service of angels; but that the appearance was that of a flaming chariot and flaming horses.” But the text, in this place, says not a word about angels, although, according to this view, they would be the chief agents; and although the history of Elijah makes mention of the service of angels, in other places (1 Kings 19:5; 1 Kings 19:7; 2 Kings 1:3; 2 Kings 1:15). Psalms 68:17 cannot be cited to support this interpretation, for there also ψֶ ?λֶֹ ?α is not equal to angel, but is a designation of the immeasurable and mighty war-power of Jehovah. The interpretation of Keil seems more probable: “The storm-gust is the earthly substratum of the theophany; the fiery chariot with the fiery horses is the symbolic form in which the translation of the master into heaven presents itself to Elisha, who remains behind.” The chariot and the horses would, however, in that case, hare been just as much definite and visible forms, even if symbolic ones, and we should have to suppose that Elisha saw Elijah actually in the chariot and riding in it towards heaven, of which the text knows nothing. It is not the form and outline which is symbolic, but the expression “chariot and horses of fire.” We have not to think of a “symbolic form” in 2 Kings 2:11 any more than in 2 Kings 2:12, when Elisha calls Elijah “Chariot of Israel and Horsemen thereof.” In this way, under a more accurate observation of the text, it is true that the supposition that Elijah rode away into heaven in a fiery chariot, drawn by fiery horses, which is still so generally adopted, is overthrown; by no means, however, is the miraculous removal or translation of Elijah overthrown: that is the main point of the narrative, with which we must satisfy ourselves, just as we must satisfy ourselves with what is said, Genesis 5:24 (cf. Hebrews 11:5), in regard to the translation of Enoch. So Von Gerlach remarks on the passage in Genesis: “All the questions in regard to the departure of this patriarch and that of Elijah, whither they were removed? where they now are? what changes they underwent in the translation? are left unanswered by the Scriptures.” Keil also says: “All further questions, e.g., in regard to the nature of the chariot of fire and the place to which Elijah was translated,…. are to be set aside as useless subtleties concerning things which surpass the limits of our understanding.” We are only justified in thus setting them aside, however, if we have rejected the fiery horses and the fiery chariot and the ride up into heaven, which Keil does not do. It is well worth observing that the primitive church, little inclined as it was to shrink back from a miracle, still did not know anything of any heavenward ride of Elijah. The Sept. render δַ ?ωָּׁ ?ξָ ?ιִ ?ν, in 2 Kings 2:1 and 2 Kings 2:11, by ὡςεἰςτὸνοὐρανόν, and thereby show clearly that they conceived of a raising up towards, but not into, heaven. Ephraim Syrus says, “Suddenly there came a fiery storm-gust from on high,…. and divided the two from one another; the one it left upon earth, the other, Elijah, it bore away on high: but whither the Ruach bore him, or in what place it let him down, the Scriptures do not tell us.” (Cf. Keil’s remarks on the passages.) Theodoret says: ‘Ομέγας ’Ηλίαςἀνελήφθημέν, ἀλλ̓ οὐκεἰςτὸνοὐρανόν, ἀλλ̓ ὡςεἰςτὸνοὐρανόν. In like manner Chrysostom, Theophylact, and �cumenius (see the citations in Suicer, Thesaur, Ecclesiast. i. 1317). That the Jews also, before and at the time of Christ, knew nothing of an ascension of Elijah into heaven, is clear from the fact that in the great eulogy of Elijah (Sir 48:1-12), where this wonderful removal is mentioned, neither in 2 Kings 2:9 nor in 2 Kings 2:12 do we find εἰςτὸνοὐρανόν: Josephus, also, who narrates all the miracles in the history of Elijah, says, at length (Antiq. xi. 2, 2): ’Ηλίαςἐξἀνθρώπωνἠφανίσφη.—καὶ οὐδεὶςἔγνωμέχριτῆςσήμεροναύτοῦ τὴντελευτήν, and then he adds that the Scriptures declare of Enoch and Elijah: ὅτιγεγόνασινἀφανεῖς· θάνατονδὲ αὐτῶνοὐδεὶςοἶδεν. In the Scriptures themselves there is no mention whatever of the ascension of Elijah into heaven, not even in Hebrews 11. where we should most expect it. Now if this ascension was, as is asserted, “one of the most glorious, significant, and joyful events which the world, before the time of Christ, had seen” (Krummacher), how does it happen that, however often mention may be made of Elijah, just this event, which is asserted to be the most important in his career, remains utterly unmentioned? Kurtz (in Herzog’s Encyclop. iii. s. 758) asserts indeed that “as regards the ascension of Elijah, all those who are not ready to look upon the gospel history as a collection of myths will be compelled to adopt the opinion which regards this as an historical event, for the Transfiguration of Christ, Matthew 17, can only be maintained as a fact if 2 Kings 2 is also a fact; the one narrative stands of falls with the other.” This conclusion, however, is incorrect; for, if Elijah could only appear in and at the Transfiguration of Christ, because he had ascended into heaven, then Moses also, who appears with him, must have ascended into heaven, of which there is not the least mention, either in Deuteronomy 34:5 sq. or anywhere else. [A general protest should also be raised against the last clause of this opinion of Kurtz. The mode of defending a disputed point by connecting it with some other very important and generally accepted one, and then asserting that they stand or fall together, is very often adopted, but it is on every account to be condemned. It is not a sound method of procedure either according to logic or history, and it is fatal to all exegetical science.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 2:12. And Elisha saw it, &c, i.e., that Elijah “was miraculously carried away” (Keil). By the words: “My father, my father!” Elisha expresses what the departing one was for himself (see 2 Kings 2:9), and by the words: “Thou chariot of Israel and horsemen thereof!” what he was for the whole nation. King Joash makes use of the same figurative expression in 2 Kings 13:14, in regard to Elisha. It does not mean “that Elijah had been the protection and help of Israel even in war” (Calwer Bibel), but “Elijah is thereby designated as the one in whom consisted that true defence of Israel, which far surpassed its physical strength.” (Thenius.) See notes on 2 Kings 2:11. Elijah was the might for war and the strength for defence of Israel, especially in so far as he defended it against its greatest and most dangerous enemy, who threatened it with ruin—against the intruding idolatry, with which he struggled victoriously. The exclamation stands, as was noted above, in unmistakable connection with the words “chariot of fire and horses of fire.” If this is a designation of the protecting, saving, and conquering might of Jehovah, then it was very natural to call the great prophet, who had maintained himself, in all his career, as an instrument of this power in its dealings with Israel, “the Chariot of Israel and the Horsemen thereof.” If, on the other hand, this fiery phenomenon which separated the two prophets from one another had had the form and figure of a chariot drawn by horses, which was intended to bring Elijah to heaven, it would be inexplicable how a mere equipage, even if it were ever so wonderful a one, could have led Elisha to call his departing master a “Chariot.” Elijah’s whole nature was fiery and energetic: “He burst forth like a fire, and his word burned like a torch,.… thrice brought he down fire” (Sir 48:1; Sir 48:3). To this the mode of his removal in the fiery whirlwind corresponded, and it was, as it were, the divine seal upon his entire career; so that he stands, for all coming time (εἰςκαιρούς, Sir 48:10), as the man of the fiery jealousy of God.—And he saw him no more; that is, he did not see how Elijah rode into heaven in a fiery chariot, but from the moment when the fiery blast, the storm-cloud, separated them from one another, he saw him no more: ἐνλαίλαπιἐσκεπάσθη (Sir 48:12), he disappeared suddenly from his eyes, became ἀφανής. Then Elisha rent his garments, and that too “in two pieces,” i.e., from top to bottom, as a sign of the greatest grief and the deepest sorrow. If he had been a witness of the “triumphal entry” of his master into heaven, as it has been often supposed that he was, he would have had more cause to rejoice than to rend his clothes for grief; his feelings were by no means joyous, they were rather in the highest degree sad. 2 Kings 2:13. He took up also the mantle, &c. The mantle is here, as in 2 Kings 2:8, the insigne of the office of the prophetical leader. When Elijah chose Elisha as his successor he threw this mantle upon him (1 Kings 19:19). Now, however, he leaves it to him as a bequest and sign that his prayer in 2 Kings 2:10 is fulfilled, and that he must now undertake the leadership of the prophets. He returns with this symbol in his possession, and, when he arrives at the Jordan, has to make the trial whether the power itself has been granted him together with the symbol. As Elijah had done in passing over the Jordan, he also strikes the water with the mantle, and says: Where is the Lord God of Elijah, even He? Jeremiah 2:6; Jeremiah 2:8, where the severest charge against the people, and especially against the priests and teachers, is, that they have not asked the question ΰַ ?ιֵּ ?διְ ?δεָֹ ?δ, “Where is Jehovah?” but have turned away from Him, shows that this was not a question of doubt or imperfect faith. On the contrary, Elisha presents a prayer, full of faith and confidence, to Jehovah, in the more emphatic form of a question: “Thou God of Elijah, if Thou art also mine, and if I am Thy servant according to Thy will and command as he was, then let this become evident by granting that that may take place at my word which Thou grantedst should come to pass at his”(Menken). The massoretic punctuation separates the words ΰַ ?σΞδεּ ?ΰ from the question, and joins them with the following sentence. Accordingly De Wette translates: “Also he (as Elijah had done before) smote the water,” [and Bunsen: “Also when he smote the water;”] and Ewald: “Hardly had he smitten the water, when it divided again.” But the ε before ιλδ is a bar to this interpretation, and ΰַ ?σ nowhere has the meaning of “hardly.” [Apparently feeling the force of this latter objection, Ewald, ed. 7. s. 853, note, changes ΰַ ?σ to ΰַ ?κְ. The reading of the E. V. agrees with that of De Wette and Bunsen.—W. G. S.] Bφttcher and Thenius following Houbigant wish to read ΰֶ ?τεֹ ?ΰ: “Where is now Jehovah, the God of Elijah?” This reading, however, is entirely without authority, and the position of the word at the end of the question is also against it. The Sept. render it meaninglessly by the same sounds in Greek letters: ἀφφώ. We take ΰַ ?σ here as in Proverbs 22:19, (where Gesenius translates: doceo te, te inquam,) that is to say, even He; He, I say. (So also Keil [and Scott].) The Vulg. has in 2 Kings 2:14 : et percussit aquas, et non sunt divis�. Et dixit: ubi est Deus Eli� etiam nunc? percussitque aquas et divis� sunt. The Complutensian edition of the Sept. has the addition: καὶ οὐ διηρήθη, following which Theodoret and, later, Dathe explain the verse thus: that Elisha considered the mantle of Elijah capable of working miracles, and, in the first place, struck the water with it, without saying anything; but that, as this was unsuccessful, he called upon the God of his master complainingly. It is evident, however, that the addition is only an explanatory gloss, occasioned by the repetition of εַ ?ιַּ ?λֶּ ?δ, which does not, however, indicate any repetition of the act of striking. 2 Kings 2:15. And when the sons of the Prophets, &c. They saw Elisha come back alone, and, since he had been able to do the same as Elijah, they concluded that the ψεּ ?ηַ of Elijah rested upon him, that is, that the same extraordinary power and gifts had been given to him by Jehovah, as preparation for the same calling; therefore they went to meet him and showed their respect for him. From their words in 2 Kings 2:16, however, it is clear that they were uncertain whether Elijah had been “taken up” forever, or only for a time, perhaps in the manner referred to by Obadiah, 1 Kings 18:12. It would have been impossible for them to speak in this way if they had had especial information, by a divine revelation, of a formal ascension of Elijah into heaven, as has been deduced from 2 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 2:5. It is a supposition which cannot be maintained, that, although Elisha had no doubt narrated to them what had occurred, they still believed that “the Lord had taken his (Elijah’s) soul up into heaven, but that his earthly body had fallen down somewhere upon the earth, and that they desired to find this in order that they might show it the last honors” (Keil), for, in this case, Elisha must have answered them: I saw Elijah ride on a fiery equipage in glory into heaven; he is therefore no longer upon earth, but in heaven, as was revealed to you beforehand:—or else, what reason did he have for not saying this? Moreover their words, 2 Kings 2:16, do not indicate by any means that they simply desired to find his corpse, in order to bury it. It is evident that they expected to find the living and not the dead. The fact that they insisted upon their proposition in spite of Elisha’s attempts to dissuade them shows plainly that he had not communicated anything in regard to an ascension into heaven to them. He was certain that Elijah had departed or been taken away forever. Hence he said: “Ye shall not send.” When, at length, he permits them to send, on account of their ceaseless persistency, he does so in order that they may become satisfied, by their own investigation, that he has now succeeded to the position of Elijah, and that they have henceforward to attach themselves to him as their leader. ςַ ?γΞαּ ?ωׁ (2 Kings 2:17) does not mean: very long, justo diutius (De Wette and others), nor: more than was becoming, nor: in a shameless manner (Menken, Thenius), but: until he was himself disappointed in the hope (of dissuading them from their purpose). αּ ?εֹ ?ωׁ often has this meaning (cf. Psalms 22:5; Psalms 25:2-3; Psalms 25:20; Psalms 69:6), and it is also a very appropriate signification for Judges 3:25, and 2 Kings 8:11. The sons of the prophets wished to have “strong men” sent out, because the search over mountains and in valleys was attended with difficulty and danger. It should also be observed that Elisha on the return of the fifty men, only reminds them of his advice which they had neglected, but does not say a word of the ascension of Elijah, much as we might expect that he would now do so. 2 Kings 2:19. And the men of the city said, &c. Perhaps it was the authorities who, in the name of the city, addressed themselves to Elisha, who now stood at the head of the prophets, and whose affable disposition had inspired them with confidence. δָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ cannot here mean “ground” (Keil), for it is not the ground, but, as 2 Kings 2:21 says distinctly, “the water” which was drunk, which caused miscarriage, and “in fact the direct use or enjoyment of this or that water has either a beneficial or a prejudicial effect on the functions of conception and parturition” (Thenius). ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υ stands here, therefore, as it does Genesis 9:19; Genesis 11:1; Genesis 19:31. It was “pleasant to dwell” in Jericho, for it lay in a magnificent situation, “rising like an oasis from a broad plain of sand” (Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s. 543). 2 Kings 2:20. Elisha calls for a “new” vessel, i.e., one which had not yet been used for any purpose whatever, because it was intended for a religious act, for, in general, all that was employed in the service of Jehovah must be as yet unused, i.e., uncontaminated (cf. Numbers 19:2). Keil takes the “new cruse” “as a symbol of the renewing power of the Word of God,” but it was only the receptacle for the salt, by means of which the water was to be made good and healthful, and it had nothing to do with the “Word of God.” The prophet made use of salt because it is used as a means of preserving that into which it is placed, and keeping it from rottenness and decay (death), in that it draws out the impure particles. In so far, then, it has healing and vivifying power (cf. Symbol. des Mosa. Kultus, ii. s. 325 sq.); it is a symbol of the purifying, restoring power which proceeds from Jehovah, for it was He, and not the salt, as such, who purified the spring and made the waters uninjurious, as 2 Kings 2:21 distinctly declares. [The “salt” was neither more nor less significant in this case than the “meal” in 2 Kings 4:41.—W. G. S.] The act of casting the salt into the spring was a prophetical, symbolical action, in which (see 1 Kings 17. Hist. § 6) the prophet represents that which the Lord is about to do, by visible signs, and with the corresponding natural means. When P. Cassel (Der Prophet Elisa, s. 21) declares that there is a reference here to the salt of the covenant in the sacrifices (Leviticus 2:13; Numbers 18:19), and says: “The miracle of Elisha signified, for the inhabitants of Jericho and for Israel through all time, a covenant of salt with the word and promise of God,” it is an evident error, for Jehovah does not say: I make with you a covenant of salt! but: I make this water healthful, I heal it. It is true that salt serves as the symbol of a covenant, to indicate its durability and sanctity, but only on account of its power of preserving and protecting from corruption and decay, which is the only thing that here comes into consideration. In this connection there is no reference whatever to a “covenant of salt.”—The spring in question exists “unto this day,” 2 Kings 2:22; and is “doubtless the spring now known as Ain es Sultan, the only spring in the neighborhood of Jericho. Its waters spread over the plain of Jericho.…. A large spring of water, which is indeed not cold, but at the same time not warm, and has a sweet and pleasant taste” (Keil.; cf. Robinson, Bibl. Res. in Palest. i. 554–5, or, ii. 283–4, ed. of 1841). 2 Kings 2:23. And he went up from thence unto Bethel, &c. As the successor of Elijah in the office of leader of the prophets, Elisha wished to visit, for the first time, the school of the prophets at Bethel, the principal seat of the illegal worship (2 Kings 2:3). The πְ ?ςָ ?ψִ ?ινχְ ?θַ ?πִּ ?ιν can scarcely be “little boys” (Luther), i.e., irresponsible children, who do not know what they say. In the first place their mocking address is opposed to this view, and still more the judgment which fell upon them. Solomon was at least twenty years old when he commenced to reign, and yet he calls himself πַ ?ςַ ?ψχָ ?θֹ ?ο (1 Kings 3:7). Jeremiah also calls himself a πַ ?ςַ ?ψ at the time of his calling to be a prophet, Jeremiah 1:6-7, likewise Joseph was so called at a time when he was at least seventeen years old (Genesis 37:2). It is also shown by 1 Kings 12:8; 1 Kings 12:10; 1 Kings 12:14, where the young counsellors of Rehoboam are called ιְ ?μָ ?γִ ?ιν, that this word (2 Kings 2:24) need not necessarily be understood of little boys. Therefore Krummacher and Cassel translate correctly by “young people.” [There is an element of modesty in the use of the word by Jeremiah and Solomon, at a comparatively advanced age. There were quite a number of these persons, more than forty-two, according to 2 Kings 2:24. πְ ?ςָ ?ψִ ?ιν is the word which would be used of them if they were of various ages, from children up to young men. It would not exclude the possibility that there were two or three older persons among them.—W. G. S.] Both the older and more recent expositors, Krummacher, J. Lange, and Kurtz, translate the mocking address by “Ascend, bald-head! (i.e., like Elijah).” so that there would be in it, at the same time, scorn for the ascension of Elijah [Patrick and Comp. Comm.], and the sense would be: “Let him also ascend and be off, that they might be rid of him,” or: “Elisha, fool that thou art, show thyself a prophet. If thou canst do anything, let us see it!” (Krummacher.) This is certainly incorrect, for ςֲ ?μֵ ?δ evidently refers to the preceding ςֹ ?μֶ ?δ, and it is impossible that it should mean something entirely different from this. Furthermore, ςμδ never means ascend (see notes on 2 Kings 2:11); and how could these young people have heard and known already about the “ascension” of Elijah, which (2 Kings 2:16) was not known even to the disciples of the prophets? Doubtless the young people had recognized him from a distance by his prophet’s mantle (perhaps the one left behind by Elijah, 2 Kings 2:13), as a prophet, and therefore, as a zealous opponent of the calf and Baal worship, which had its principal seat in Bethel (1 Kings 12:29); as they saw him now going up the hill to the city, they called to him in mockery: Go up into our city, thou bald-head, what dost thou want here among us? The expression “bald-head” is not to be understood as it generally is, of actual baldness, nor of “a smooth place on the back of the head” (Keil), for how were the young people to notice this in Elisha as he approached them from a distance? Moreover, Elisha was still in his best years, and he lived for at least fifty years after this time, so that he could not possibly have been bald-headed already on account of age. Still less can there be any reference to an artificial bareness of the head, for the Law forbade directly all persons who were consecrated to the service of Jehovah, as, for instance, the priests and nazarites, to shave the hair of the head (Leviticus 21:5; Numbers 6:5). In general, to make bald the head was a sign of dishonor and disgrace (Isaiah 3:17; Isaiah 15:2), and baldness was also a mark of leprosy (Leviticus 13:43). “Bald-head” is, therefore, a disgraceful epithet, which refers, not to a bodily imperfection, a “natural fault” (Keil), but to the calling of Elisha as man of God and prophet; he is thereby designated as one who is the opposite of that which he pretends to be and appears to be, as an impure and expelled person. Cassel remarks: “The expression of the Jews for Roman Catholic priests, during the Middle Ages, and until recent times, was ‘bald-heads:’ the tonsure passed among them as a mark of the very opposite of consecration and holiness.” [The epithet either had its origin in fact and Elisha was prematurely bald, or else it was a standing epithet of insult used for old or reverend people, independently of the fact whether the particular person addressed was bald or not.—W. G. S.] It is evident, then, from this epithet, that the young people had recognized, in Elisha, a prophet, and that they meant to scoff at him precisely as such. Therefore the prophet had to deal here with something very different from mere wantonness, such as little boys sometimes practise with a failing old man. 2 Kings 2:24. And he turned back, &c. That which Moses and Aaron say to the people about their complaints: “Your murmurings are not against us but aganist the Lord” (Exodus 16:8; cf. Acts 5:4), is also applicable here. The scorn of the children attacked not so much the person of Elisha as the calling which had been bestowed upon him by Jehovah, and, in so far, it was a contemning of Jehovah himself, which the prophet, on his first appearance in that capacity, and here in Bethel, of all places, could not allow to pass in silence and unrebuked, without denying his holy calling. He cursed them in the name of the Lord, that is, he threatened them with a divine judgment, which in the sequel did not fail to befall them. There came forth two she-bears, whether at once, and in the presence of Elisha, or not, is uncertain (Kφster: “How long afterwards, is not mentioned”). Bears, especially she-bears, are represented as very fierce and ravenous (Proverbs 17:12; Proverbs 28:15; Hosea 13:8; Daniel 7:5. Cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s. 130). That they ate up forty-two of the children is not asserted in the text, for ϊְּ ?αַ ?χַּ ?ςְ ?πָ ?δ only means: they split, opened, i.e., tore to pieces (Hosea 13:8). Perhaps it only means to say in general that they perpetrated a great massacre among them; the word ξֵ ?δֶ ?ν shows that there were many more than forty-two of them in all, and this has led to the conjecture that their meeting, for the purpose of reviling the prophet, was planned and prepared. It is possible that they had heard of the coming of a new head of the prophets, and had gone out to meet him in a body, in order to revile him. Nevertheless, the number, forty-two, which cannot be a round or symbolic number, is a very large one to be destroyed by two bears. In general, such is the brevity and disconnectedness of the narrative, that all sorts of questions arise, which remain unanswered, although they do not justify us in declaring the story a simple legend, or indeed a mere fiction. 2 Kings 2:25. And he went from thence to Mount Carmel, &c. It can hardly be that Elisha stayed for any length of time at Bethel. Whether, as Krummacher thinks, he hastened away because “the vision of the monstrous act which he had performed lay upon his heart with the weight of mountains,” and because the consciousness: such a deed have I done! drove him into retirement, in order that “he might take breath again and recover his composure in the arms of Jehovah,” is very doubtful. On the contrary he seems to have sought solitude after the manner of the prophets (see Exeg. on 1 Kings 17:3), as soon as he had presented himself to the sons of the prophets as the successor of Elijah, in order to prepare himself for his further public life. He chose Carmel for this purpose, because this mountain, with its numerous grottos and caves, was especially fitted for a residence in concealment; perhaps, also, because Elijah had there first broken the power of idolatry (see notes on 1 Kings 18). After the return from Carmel he dwelt in Samaria (cf. 2 Kings 6:32), from which fact we see that under Jehoram, although Jezebel still lived, the persecution of the prophets had diminished or indeed entirely ceased. AND ETHICAL1. The removal of Elijah, with which the visible existence of this great prophet ends, is the main point of the narrative before us, and is, therefore, before all else, to be thoroughly comprehended. In the first place, the mode and form in which it took, place, come into consideration. It was not a mere disappearance, a becoming invisible, but it was brought about by a fiery stormblast. The peculiar mode of Elijah’s removal stands in an unmistakable relation to his vocation, which consisted in this, that he was to be, by word and deed, the herald and the instrument of the divine judgment against apostasy and idolatry, and was to renew the broken covenant (see 1 Kings 17 Hist. § 1). His entire public life and work had, therefore, the character of that of a judge—on the one side destroying and consuming, and on the other reforming and constructing. Just as everywhere in the Scriptures, and especially in the Old Testament, fire is the form in which all the action of God as judge presents itself (Deuteronomy 4:24; Deuteronomy 9:3; Deuteronomy 32:22; Numbers 11:1-2; Numbers 16:35; Isaiah 4:4; Isaiah 26:11; Isaiah 29:6; Psalms 21:9; Psalms 50:3; Zephaniah 1:18; Hebrews 12:29; 2 Peter 3:7; 2 Peter 3:12, &c.), so the words of this instrument of the divine energy were words of fire, and his deeds were deeds of fire. Thus he appears, not only in the historical books, but also especially in the great panegyric of the holy fathers, in the book of Sirach, which begins its description, when it comes to this prophet, with the words: “And Elijah arose, a prophet like fire, and his words burned like a torch,” and closes with these: “And he was taken up in a whirlwind of fire, in a chariot of fiery horses. And he is appointed for the discipline of future times, to soothe away anger before judgment, and to convert the heart of the father to the son, and to establish the tribes of Jacob” (Sir 48:1; Sir 48:9-10). When now this fire-prophet is removed and carried away by God in a fiery storm, it is clear that it is not a divine judgment which was executed upon him, but a divine confirmation of his work, in its predominant aspect, viz., the judicial; so that it is, as it were, the seal of God upon that which Elijah was for his own and for all future times, viz., the surety for and the herald of, every great judgment-day of God, i.e., of the fire, which acts as well to purify and build up as to destroy and devastate (Malachi 3:2; Malachi 4:1-6. Cf. Hengstenberg, Christologie des A. T. iii. s. 441 sq.). As such an actual witness of the all-conquering judicial might of God, he was not destined to come to his end in weakness and decay, to experience the usual death, the embodiment of all human powerlessness and transitoriness, but he was destined to be removed in divine power and might. His translation, far from being indifferent, accidental, and insignificant, bore the same stamp as his temporal and earthly appearance, and corresponded perfectly to his peculiar and unparalleled position in the divine economy of salvation. Only in this way can his removal and the mode of it be explained, whereas, according to that conception of the event, which lays all the stress upon a chariot, drawn by horses, instead of upon the fire, any connection between it and the life and peculiar work of the prophet is wanting, and we can at best only suppose that this was an extraordinary reward for his labors. The question, What became of the body of Elijah upon his translation? is exactly like the other one, Into what place did he come? and it must remain, to say the least, an open question, since the Scriptures are entirely silent in regard to it. Those expositors, both in earlier and later times, who maintain a formal ascension of Elijah, adopt either the idea of a transmutation of his body during the ascension (Krummacher: “While he is riding on, lo! his body, the dust, is gradually transmuted.” [“His body being transformed in his passage toward heaven, he was carried up to live among the angels.” Patrick]), or that of a sudden transformation, citing 1 Corinthians 15:51 sq.: “But we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump.” (Keil: “Elijah did not die, but was taken up by a transformation into heaven,” and he remarks on Genesis 5:24 : “Whoever is raised above death by the grace of God, cannot arise from the dead, but arrives at the ἀφθαρσία, or the purified state of perfection, by a transformation, or ‘being clothed upon,’ 2 Corinthians 5:4.”) But, not to speak of other objections, “transformation,” or new-clothing of the believers in Christ, presupposes the entire work of Christ, especially his elevation to the right hand of God and his second advent; it is conditioned upon that second coming, and it is something which is to take place but once, in an extraordinary manner (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16). So St. Paul designates it as a “mystery,” which he could not have done if it had already taken place in like manner under the old covenant. To carry back, therefore, [this Christian conception of the resurrection of the dead, in a spiritual and incorruptible body,] and apply it to Enoch and Elijah, is an inadmissible mixing up of the economies of salvation of the Old and New Testaments. 2. The translation of Elijah has been compared in many ways with the ascension of Christ, and taken as a type of the same. So, for instance, Richter says: “By this means it was intended that the Ascension of Christ should be typified and made more credible,” and Keil: “Elijah … as forerunner of Christ (Malachi 3:3; Matthew 11:10 sq.) was received up into heaven without tasting death, in order to foretell the ascension of our Lord, and to typify it, after the manner of the Old Testament.” This opinion rests, however, directly upon the premise that Elijah ascended into heaven in the same manner as Christ. Yet the Scriptures speak with very different, and in fact very definite, expressions of the departure of Christ, not as a removal or translation, but as an ascent into heaven and a reception there, an entrance into the glory, which he had before the foundations of the earth were laid (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9-11; Acts 2:33 sq.; Acts 7:55; John 17:5; John 17:24). Christ actually tasted death, but he arose from the dead and was elevated, as victor over sin and death, to the right hand of the Majesty in heaven (Hebrews 8:1). He himself says: “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in heaven” (John 3:13); although these words may refer, in the first instance, to the insight into, and knowledge of, divine things, yet they also testify, nevertheless, to something which the Son of Man alone is capable of, as the Apostle also writes: “He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things” (Ephesians 4:10). In the case of Christ, the Ascension forms an integral and essential moment in His work of salvation. There begins His kingly function, and that redemptive work which lasts into eternity (Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 5:9-10; Hebrews 9:12). In the case of Elijah, on the contrary, his entire work ceases upon his translation. It is not the entrance into a broader, higher activity in heaven, but the end, even though a glorious end, of his work, and on this account it cannot pass for a type of the Ascension of Christ. To compare it with this, therefore, or to put it on the same line with this, is to take from Christ what belongs to Him alone, and, according to the nature of the thing, can belong only to Him. If Elijah had ridden upon a fiery chariot, drawn by fiery steeds, up into heaven, his ascension would have been far more glorious and brilliant than that of the Lord of Glory, when He was raised to the right hand of the Majesty on high; how then can it be a type of this? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ C. The Reign of Jehoram, and his Expedition against the Moabites2 Kings 3:1-271 Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years. 2And he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord; but not like his father, and like his mother: for he put away the image of Baal that his father had made. 3Nevertheless he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin; he departed not therefrom. 4And Mesha king of Moab was a sheepmaster, and rendered unto the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs, and a hundred thousand rams, with the wool [the wool of a hundred thousand rams]. 5But it came to pass, when Ahab was dead, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. 6And king Jehoram went out of Samaria the same time [at that time], and numbered all Israel. 7And he went and sent to Jehoshaphat the King of Judah, saying, The king of Moab hath rebelled against me: wilt thou go with me against Moab to battle? And he said, I will go up: I am as thou art, my people as thy people, and my horses as thy horses. 8And he said, Which way shall we go up? And he answered, The way through the wilderness of Edom. 9So the king of Israel went, and the king of Judah, and the king of Edom: and they fetched a compass of seven days’ journey: and there was no water for the host, and for the cattle that followed them. 10And the king of Israel said, Alas! that the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hands of Moab! 11But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may inquire of the Lord by him? And one of the king of Israel’s servants answered and said, Here is Elisha the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah. 12And Jehoshaphat said, The word of the Lord is with him. So the King of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him. 13And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay: for the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab. 14And Elisha said, As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee. 15But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him. 16And he said, Thus saith the Lord, Make this valley full of ditches. 17For thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not see wind, neither shall ye see rain; yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle, and your beasts. 18And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord: he will deliver the Moabites also into your hand. 19And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones. 20And it came to pass in the morning, when the meat-offering was offered [at the time of offering sacrifice], that, behold, there came water by the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water. 21And when all the Moabites [had] heard that the kings were come up to fight against them, they [had] gathered all that were able to put on armour, and upward, and stood in the border [had stationed themselves on the boundary]. 22And they rose up early in the morning, and the sun shone [rose] upon the water, and the Moabites saw the water on the other side [opposite them] as red as blood: 23And they said, This is blood: the kings are surely slain [have fought, to their own destruction], and they have smitten one another: now therefore, Moab, to the spoil. 24And when they came to the camp at Israel, the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites, so that they fled before them: but they went forward smitting the Moabites, even in their country. 25And they beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees [until there were left] only in Kir-haraseth left they [omit left they] the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it. 26And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not. 27Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against [in] Israel: and they departed from him [Mesha], and returned to their own land. AND 2 Kings 3:1. Jehoram the son of Ahab, &c. In regard to the chronological statements see notes on 2 Kings 8:16.—In 2 Kings 3:2 the Sept. and Vulg. read ξַ ?φְּ ?αֹ ?ϊ for ξַ ?φְּ ?αַ ?ϊ, which Thenius wrongly declares to be better. According to 2 Kings 10:26 sq., when the temple of Baal, which had been built by Ahab (1 Kings 16:32), was destroyed, in the first place the (wooden) ξַ ?φְּ ?αεֹ ?ϊ were burned, and then the (stone or metal) ξַ ?φְּ ?αַ ?ϊδַ ?αָּ ?ςַ ?μ was broken in pieces. It is clear that this last was the principal statue, and we have to think here of the same or a similar one, which stood before the royal palace, and not in the temple. It is to be noticed that Jehoram only removed and did not destroy it. It is not entirely certain whether he did it immediately after his accession, or after the expedition against Moab. 2 Kings 3:4. Mesha king of Moab, &c. The fruitful and well-watered land of Moab was especially fitted for the pasturage of flocks (Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s. 99). The wealth of the king seems, as he is himself called πֹ ?χֵ ?γ [shepherd or sheep-master], to have consisted in flocks, hence he paid the tribute in these. Michaelis, Maurer, and others, refer φָ ?ξֶ ?ψ [wool], at the end of 2 Kings 3:4, to both lambs and rams, so that Mesha would have had to pay only the wool from both; in that case, however, the rams must certainly have had a different wool from the sheep, which cannot be proved. Ewald and Thenius make it only refer to the ΰֵ ?ιμִ ?ιν, mentioned last before it, so that the sense is, since λַּ ?ψ is used especially for a fatted lamb, that the lambs were given alive for food, but that from the rams only the wool or the fleeces were given up. The tribute was, in any case, a very considerable one; but this does not justify the conclusion that it was paid only on every change of government (Clericus). There is no doubt that we have to regard it as a regular annual tribute (cf. Isaiah 16:1). At the division of the kingdom, Judah took Edom and Israel Moab. As early as the time of Ahaziah the Moabites had declared their independence of Israel (2 Kings 1:1); as he, however, soon fell sick, and did not reign for even two full years, it remained for Jehoram to try to resubjugate the rebels, and to retain them in tributary subjection. [In the year 1869 a basalt column, three feet high by one and a half feet wide, and one and a half feet thick, was discovered near Dibon, in Moab, on which was an inscription running in the name of Mesha and detailing his acts, especially the conquests made, and the temples built, by him. It was broken, through the jealousy and suspicion of the Arabs, before it could be removed, or a copy taken of it. Nothing remains but fragments. There are, therefore, several gaps in the inscription as we now possess it. It refers to the oppression of Moab by Israel. Omri is the king mentioned as having afflicted Moab, “because Chemosh was angry with the king [of Moab].” A gap destroys the names of kings of Israel who reigned “for forty years.” The reference which is thus lost would be of the highest value for determining the date of the inscription. It goes on to say that Chemosh became gracious again in the days of Mesha, so that the king gained victories over Israel. Chemosh told him to take Nebo. He took it, and sacrificed seven thousand of its inhabitants to Ashtor-Chemosh, and took the vessels of Jehovah and offered them to Chemosh. The last part of the inscription is so fragmentary as to be hardly intelligible. As usual in such inscriptions, only the king’s victories, and not his defeats, are mentioned. Cf. Art. “Writing;” Smith’s Dict. Bib., Am. ed.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 3:6. And king Jehoram went out of Samaria the same time, &c. That is, at the time when he became king, and Mesha refused him the tribute.—He numbered, or mustered, i.e., he brought together, a large army, by a levy of men throughout all Israel who were capable of bearing arms; but he addressed himself to Jehoshaphat at the same time, in order to be so much the more certain of attaining his object, and the latter then entered into an alliance with him. Cf. on 2 Kings 3:7, the remarks on 1 Kings 22:4. The combined army could advance by the “way” (2 Kings 3:8) over the Jordan, and then along the eastern side of the Dead Sea, and so fall upon Moab from the north; or it could march down on this side of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, as far as the southern extremity of the latter, and then force its way into Moab from the south through a portion of the land of Edom. Jehoshaphat decided in favor of the latter road, although it was longer and beset with more difficulties than the other, chiefly, we may well believe, because they could then call the king of Edom with his army to their assistance, and make sure that he did not profit by the opportunity and make war upon them himself. Perhaps they also thought that Moab could be more easily surprised from the south. [The fortifications of the Moabites were on their northern boundary. On the south they relied upon the natural obstacles to the advance of a hostile army. On the northern route, moreover, the armies of Israel would have been exposed to an attack from the Syrians, who were in a disposition to seize eagerly upon any such opportunity.—W. G. S.] Edom had at this time no king of its own, but a governor appointed by Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:48). The seven days’ journey (2 Kings 3:9) cannot be understood of the distance from Jerusalem, which is only about sixty miles, for the king of Edom had already joined the two other kings with his army [i.e., it is said that the three kings wandered seven days’ journey, so that the time must be reckoned after their junction; but the king of Edom would not go to Jerusalem to meet them, and then march back again. He joined them at the borders of Edom, a very short distance from the scene of the distress for want of water.—W. G. S.]. More probably “they suffered for seven days from want of water in the desert-region to the south of the Dead Sea” (Ewald). For a more particular description of this region, see Keil on the passage. λִּ ?ι in 2 Kings 3:10 is not equivalent to “for;” but it serves either to intensify the assertion: “Alas! for Jehovah,” &c. (Keil, De Wette), or its only use is to introduce the assertion, and it is not to be translated (Luther, Thenius), as in Isaiah 15:1. 2 Kings 3:11. But Jehoshaphat said, &c. Cf. 1 Kings 22:5-7. As in that case, Jehoshaphat desires to hear a prophet of Jehovah, i.e., a true prophet, not a pretended one, a prophet of Ahab. That which Jehoram himself did not know was known by one of his servants, i.e., no doubt one of his chief officers, who was, perhaps, like Obadiah (1 Kings 18:3), secretly a friend of the prophet.—Which poured water, &c, i.e., who “was about Elijah daily as his servant, and who is certainly the most reliable prophet since he is gone” (Thenius).—It is clear from the definite declaration of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 3:12), that the reputation of Elisha had extended already to Judah. It is very significant that the three kings did not summon him to them, but themselves went down to him. Probably “the tents of the kings were set upon an eminence so as to overlook the encampment” (Thenius). The inference which Josephus affirms, that the prophet had his tent outside the encampment, and at some distance from it, is not justified by the words. 2 Kings 3:13. And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, &c. The prophet addresses himself to Jehoram because he is the principal person here, through whom the others have been brought into these straits. The question: What have I to do with thee? means: Why dost thou desire to come to me, the prophet of the God whom thou hast abandoned? The prophets of his father were, no doubt, those court-prophets, at whose head Zedekiah once stood (1 Kings 22:6; 1 Kings 22:11); the prophets of his mother Jezebel can have been only Baal-prophets (1 Kings 18:19). We see from this that Jehoram, although he had removed the statue of Baal, still allowed the priests of Baal to perform their functions, as they had done before, without molestation. This is also clear from 2 Kings 10:19. Jehoram does not mean by the curt expression ΰַ ?μ: it cannot help me to go to the prophets of Baal (Rabbis), but (cf. Rth 1:13): Do not repel me, I am not alone at stake; shall three kings with their armies perish?—On the words: Before whom I stand, see notes on 1 Kings 17:1; 1 Kings 18:15.—Elisha demands (2 Kings 3:15) a “minstrel” or harp-player, certainly not “that he might chant the reply of God to the accompaniment of the harp” (J. D. Michaelis), nor “in order to pronounce his directions with a sufficiently solemn tone” (Knobel). Bleek observes: “The recitations of the prophets were, in early times, very lively, in a lyrical form of composition, and, as is generally the case with respect to the recitation of lyrical poetry, accompanied by music;” the accompaniment in this case, then, was most probably “the mode of prophetic recitation, which was not unusual at the time.” But there is no mention in any other place of any such method, and it is impossible to appeal to 1 Samuel 10:5, according to which an entire band of the prophets came out with drum and flute and harp. That only proves that music was practised in the prophet-communities. It is also certain that Elisha’s master, Elijah, did not cause his recitations or speeches to be accompanied by music. The extraordinary means, which does not occur again in the story of Elisha, presupposes an extraordinary occasion therefor. In ancient times harp-music was often employed as a means of withdrawing the soul from the outer world, and of collecting, quieting, and elevating it. Among the numerous places which Bochart (Hieroz. i. 2. 44) collected upon this point, it may suffice to quote here only one. Cicero (Tusc. 4.) says that the Pythagoreans were accustomed mentes suas a cogitationum intentione cantu fidibusque ad tranquillitatem trεducere. Cf. also 1 Samuel 16:16, and Clericus’ remarks on the place. Elisha’s dissatisfaction, which he expresses in 2 Kings 3:13-14, although it was natural and just, was, nevertheless, not the disposition of soul which is demanded if one is to hear the voice of God within. The situation, the encampment, and the entire surroundings were unadapted for composure and elevation of soul for we find that the prophets usually received their revelations in retirement and quiet, not in the noise and bustle of the world. In order that he may be brought into the right disposition, may direct his inner self entirely towards the Lord, and may be able to surrender himself to the higher influence, Elisha makes use of the usual means, probably the one which was regularly employed for this purpose in the schools of the prophets, and indeed not without success, for during the playing upon the harp, “the hand of the Lord came upon him.” Cf. notes on 1 Kings 18:46 (Jeremiah 1:9). 2 Kings 3:17. For thus saith the Lord, &c. According to Thenius we must identify the valley where they were to dig ditches in order to collect the water, which otherwise would have run quickly away, with what is to-day called Wady el Ahsy, which is the natural boundary of Moab on the south (Isaiah 15:7), and from which several ravines run up into the mountain region of Moab [Robinson 2:112, 157]. The prophecy itself, 2 Kings 3:17-19, contains a climax in its two members: The Lord will not only save you out of the present need, but he will also grant you glorious victory over Moab. The words in the 19th verse are not a command, as 2 Kings 3:16 is: they only declare what will occur. For this reason, in the first place, it is impossible to charge the prophet with commanding what Deuteronomy 20:19 sq. forbids; but, besides that, the place in Deut. refers to the conquest of Canaan, during which no fruit-tree was to be used for palisades or fortifications in sieges. To mar every good piece of land with stones, means to throw so many stones upon it that it would no longer be available for cultivation (Sept.: ἁχρειώσετε).—ξִ ?πְ ?ηָ ?δ (2 Kings 3:20) has the same meaning as in 1 Kings 18:29; 1 Kings 18:36. The interpretation which Von Gerlach and Keil give to this statement, that on account of the morning sacrifice offered in the temple at Jerusalem, according to the Law, God turned His favor once more upon the people, goes too far. The statement can scarcely be more than a mere designation of time, i.e., as it became light. Before the exile time was not defined by hours. Nevertheless, a reference may lie in it to the fact that help came just at the moment of time sacred to Jehovah. The express mention that there came water by way of Edom, makes the supposition inadmissible that, in digging the ditches (2 Kings 3:16), “the fresh springs bubbled up under the feet of the laborers” (Krummacher), or that we must think of “subterranean cisterns” (Richter). A much more probable explanation is that “a great shower fell at some distance from the Israelitish encampment” (Josephus even asserts: three days’ journey from it), “or a kind of a cloud-burst (water-spout) took place, by which the wady was filled all at once, although the Israelites did not notice the wind, which always arises before a rain-storm, in the Orient, nor see the rain itself” (Keil). 2 Kings 3:21. And when all the Moabites heard, &c. In order to await the attack on their own mountains—that is, in an excellent position—the Moabites had stationed themselves, with all their military force, on the frontier. The morning sun arising with a red light, caused the water to appear red, besides which the water itself was reddened by the red earth of Edom (Ewald). That they took it for blood was not, as the older interpreters supposed, a mistake which was brought about by God in a miraculous manner, but a perfectly natural error, into which they would fall all the more readily as they knew very well that there was no water in that desert. The supposition also, which they express in the 23d verse, is not by any means far-fetched, since similar events often occurred (2 Chronicles 20:23; Judges 7:22); and they well knew what jealousy existed between Israel and Judah, and the inclination of Edom to throw off the yoke of the latter (Gerlach). This supposition rose to a certainty in their eagerness for booty. The sentence in 2 Kings 3:25 from ςַ ?γ to ηֲ ?ψָ ?ωֶׂ ?ϊ is “to be joined with the commencement of the verse: ‘and they beat down the cities.’ (What comes between describes the devastation of the land, which also had an influence on the cities.) Accordingly ΰֲ ?αָ ?πֶ ?ιδָ can only be understood in its real sense of actual wall-stones, and not of cliffs or rock, and the suffix on this word-refers to χִ ?ιψηֲ ?ψָ ?ωֶׂ ?ϊ and not to Moab” (Thenius). The city Kir Hareseth is the same which is called Kir Moab, χִ ?ιψξεֹ ?ΰָ ?α (Isaiah 15:1), and Kir Heres, χִ ?ιψηֶ ?ψֶ ?ωׂ [Isaiah 16:1; cf. Jeremiah 48:31; Jeremiah 48:36). It was the capital city, “the most important, perhaps the only fortification in the country, built upon a high, steep, chalk-cliff” (Keil), now called Kerak, and provided with a fort [see Robinson, ii. 66], (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 658 sq.). The χַ ?μָּ ?ςִ ?ιν are not those who applied siege-engines (Grotius: tormentarii), but slingers, in the common meaning of the word, funditores, who shot at the garrison upon the walls.—Unto the king of Edom, i.e., toward the side where the king was with his subjects, either because this seemed to be the weakest part of the besieging force (Thenius), or because they hoped that they could most easily draw away the Edomite contingent from the allied army (Ewald). 2 Kings 3:27. Then he took his eldest son, &c. Many take these words with the Rabbis, thus: During the sortie against the king of Edom, Mesha captured his son and offered him as a sacrifice. This occasioned such bitterness among the Edomites that they refused to continue the fight, and thereby compelled Israel to give up the war altogether and withdraw. This interpretation is decidedly false. The passage, Amos 2:1, to which reference is made to support it, refers to an entirely different event, which is not known to us more particularly. Amos, who lived, moreover, one hundred years later, there announces to the Moabites the avenging judgment of God, because they had “burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime.” In this case, however, the question is in regard to a son of the king, who was offered as a living sacrifice. The bones of the dead were never burned as a sacrifice, and captive kings or their sons, although they were sometimes executed out of revenge, were never sacrificed to the gods. Even in the darkest heathenism, sacrifice was always an offering of that which was nearest and dearest, and it was considered efficient only in so far as it was such. This is the case especially in respect to the child-offerings of western Asia. It was a custom among the ancients, says Philo, in the Ph�nician History (Euseb. Prep. Evang. iv. 16) ἐνταῖςμεγάλαιςσυμφοραῖςτῶνκινδύνωνἀντὶ τῆςπάντωνφθορᾶςτὸ ἠγαπημένοντῶντέκνωντοὺςκρατοῦνταςἢ πόλεωςἢ ἒθνουςεἰςσφαγὴνἐπιδιδόναιλύτροντοῖςτιμωροῖςδαίμοσι. So also, in this case, Mesha sacrificed, in order to avert the threatening destruction, his first-born son, who should have succeeded him upon the throne; i.e., the dearest and most precious thing which he had, not to the God of Israel (Josephus and Grotius), but to the Moabitish War-god, Chemosh (cf. on 1 Kings 11:7). (Cf. on human sacrifices, Symbol. des Mos. Cultus, ii. s. 241; Movers, Die Relig. der Ph�niz. s. 299, sq.) That the son also, “for his part, willingly yielded himself to death for his fatherland” (Ewald), is not in the text, and is in itself very improbable. The sacrifice was offered upon the wall, in order that the besiegers might see it, and fear the divinity, who might now be supposed to be appeased. 2 Kings 3:27. And there was great indignation in Israel, &c. This sentence, on account of its curt-ness and brevity, is quite obscure and difficult Its meaning has been taken in different ways Most of the expositors, citing the same phrase Numbers 1:53; Numbers 18:5 (comp. with Leviticus 17:11); Joshua 9:20; Joshua 22:20; 2 Chronicles 19:10; 2 Chronicles 24:18, think of divine wrath or a divine judgment, and give as the meaning: As a result of this abominable action, which is so strictly forbidden in the Law (Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:3), and to which the allied army had compelled the king of Moab, there came a divine judgment upon Israel, so that they withdrew without subjugating Moab (Keil). There is no objection to this in the usage of the language; but the context is decidedly opposed to it. The divine χֶ ?φֶ ?σ [wrath] is, in all the places mentioned above, the result of a definite guilt on the part of Israel; in this case, however, there is not a word to the effect that Israel had incurred guilt. That which had been brought about by the allied army, had taken place as the prophet had foretold (2 Kings 3:18 sq.), and he had represented it as an especially great assistance of God. When, then, the king of Moab did something of his own accord which the Law strenuously forbade, that was his guilt and not Israel’s. On the hypothesis proposed, the withdrawal of the army, which was a piece of good fortune for him, would have been even a reward for his abominable crime, instead of being the punishment which he deserved, whereas the punishment would have fallen upon guiltless Israel. Moreover, in what did the heavy judgment of God against Israel consist? The text contains not a syllable in regard to any plague or calamity. These expositors are therefore compelled to take χֶ ?φֶ ?σ as meaning human anger (dissatisfaction, resentment, bitterness), in which sense it occurs, Ecclesiastes 5:17 [Hbr. text, 16]; Esther 1:18, and as χָ ?φַ ?σ is so often found (Genesis 40:2; Genesis 41:10; Exodus 16:20; Leviticus 10:16;Numbers 31:14). Many expositors, then, give to the words this sense, that on account of this shocking crime, there sprang up, in the kings of Judah and Edom, a great wrath or resentment against Israel and its king, as original cause of the war, and therefore of the crime, so that they would not fight any longer with and for Israel, but withdrew, and so compelled Israel to do the same (Dereser). It is not right, however, to fill out the text in this manner; and nothing justifies us in understanding under ιִ ?ωֶׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ here, simply the army of Jehoram. We therefore follow the old translations, according to which ςַ ?μΞιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ is not, as it is generally understood, a designation of the object, but of the subject of the anger. The Sept. have: καὶ ἐγένετομετάμελοςμέγαςἐπὶ ’Ισραήλ; the Vulgata has: et facta est indignatio magna in Israel; so also the Syr. and Arab., and Luther in like manner: “da ward Israel sehr zornig” (Grotius, Clericus, Thenius). ςַ ?μ stands in a similar use 2 Kings 3:15; Jeremiah 8:18; Jonah 2:7 [Hbr. text, 8], and often. According to Psalms 106:37-39, by the sacrifice of sons and daughters the whole land was covered with blood-guilt, and was rendered impure and accursed. In the present instance this took place by the sacrifice of the first-born son of the king, which the ruler of the land himself offered. They did not wish to remain any longer in such a country, on account of their horror at this deed; they preferred to renounce further possession of it. The words: They departed from him and returned to their own land, certainly do hot mean to say: “The end of the expedition was attained, and the land was forced back under the sceptre of the king of Israel again” (Krummacher); on the contrary, they gave up the attempt to subjugate Moab by force. AND ETHICAL1. The brief and general description of the reign of Jehoram brings out into prominence, as characteristic of it, two points. In the first place, that this king removed the statue of Baal, which had been erected by his father Ahab, then, however, that he clung all the more decidedly to the Calf-worship of Jeroboam. From the first statement it does not by any means follow, as has often been assumed, that he “abolished the Baal-worship” altogether (Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s., 599), for, according to chap 10, this worship endured yet throughout his entire reign, and Jehu was the first who put an end to it. It appears, therefore, that he only broke with the worship of Baal for himself, asking, and meant to declare publicly, by the removal of the statue, that the worship of Baal was not the prevailing state-religion. This was, at all events, a step towards improvement, yet without especial value; for, if the fear of the living God of Israel, and the conviction of the absolute repulsiveness of idol-worship had led him to this course, then he could not possibly have allowed idolatry to continue in its complete development. That he persevered so firmly in maintaining the institutions of Jeroboam, was brought about by the same cause as in the case of all his predecessors: the existence of the kingdom, separate from Judah, was conditioned upon these institutions (see 1 Kings 12. Hist. § 1). It is therefore very probable that they were rather political motives and considerations than anything else which prompted him to the removal of the statue. By means of Elijah and the schools of the prophets, a large portion, and that, too, the best portion, of the people had already been won over to a disposition hostile to the worship of Baal, so that from that side danger might arise for the house of Ahab, which had introduced this worship of idols, as, in fact, at a later time, this danger became a reality through Jehu (chap. 9). Jehoram, therefore, for his own part, renounced the worship of Baal, and desisted from all persecutions of the opponents of the same; but he still tolerated it for the sake of his mother, the fanatically idolatrous Jezebel, if for no other reason. His policy of government was therefore a half-way one, and for that reason an ineffective one. Indecision, want of firmness, and a disposition to do everything only half-way, are the characteristics which present themselves prominently, in many ways, throughout his entire behavior, as will be shown still further, below. 2. King Jehoshaphat appears here just as in 1 Kings 22. He yielded to the request of Jehoram, in spite of the unsuccessful results of his undertakings with Ahab and Ahaziah, and in spite of the warning of the prophet Jehu not to help the apostates (2 Chronicles 19:2), probably influenced by the conviction that the war against rebellious Moab was a necessary and just one, and was also in the interest of Judah. The restless Moabites had always had a disposition hostile to all the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:4-6). They had already once entered into an alliance with the Ammonites against Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 20), and were, therefore, dangerous neighbors for Judah: to permit them to become independent would have been only to make this danger greater. It was in the highest degree important for both kingdoms, on general principles, to hold the different kings who had been tributary since David’s time in subjection, since every defection or rebellion which succeeded would only have encouraged and stimulated to another. The restoration of the ancient greatness and glory of the united kingdom, which Jehoshaphat was striving for (see above on 1 Kings 22:41 sq.), would have become more and more improbable. His behavior during the expedition stands in strong contrast with that of Jehoram. The latter does not know what to do in the time of need; he mourns and complains despairingly, while Jehoshaphat, the god-fearing, does not lose dignity and composure; he desires that the Lord should be inquired of, and he relies upon His help and counsel. The old expositors thought that he ought to have inquired of the Lord before the expedition, and that it was because he did not do this that he too came into so great distress. But Elisha is so far from giving utterance to any blame against him, that he declares, on the other hand, that it is only on his account that he is willing to, and will, answer and give counsel. The tendency of the whole story is to show how Jehovah, for the sake of the one king who is faithful to Him, saves the two others, in order that both they and the entire army may see that this God alone is mighty, and that victory comes from Him (Psalms 62:11 [Hebrews 12]; Proverbs 21:31). 3. We see Elisha here, for the first time, step out face to face with kings, and interfere in the fortunes of the entire nation. Here too he maintains himself as one on whom Elijah’s spirit rests (2 Kings 2:15), and not alone as the one who had poured water on his hands. Without the orders or the knowledge of the king, he joins the toilsome expedition, and shares all the dangers of the army, by no means from soldier like passion for war, or from compulsion, but from prophetical zeal, in order that he may bear witness, by word and deed, to the God of Israel, His power and faithfulness, wherever and however circumstances might demand. Now, when need and distress occur, and the three kings and their train, Jehoram at the head, come to him, he knows nothing of fear, he neither allows himself to be overawed or terrified, nor does he feel himself honored and flattered; but he steps forth to meet the wavering king firmly and independently, as Elijah had once gone to meet Ahab (1 Kings 18:18), and rebukes his sins, so that the king stands before him, as it were, with fettered hands, feels himself smitten, and begs that the prophet will not repel him, at least for the sake of the two other kings. Kφster (Die Propheten des Alt. Test. s. 86) asserts that “the prophet appears here, under the control of unspiritual pride and anger, to profit by the distress of the king, in order to hurt his feelings deeply,” and that his conduct “cannot be entirely justified;” but he mistakes entirely the nature and position of the prophetical calling in Israel, in regard to which that holds true, which was said to Jerem. (2 Kings 1:9 sq.): “Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant,” and to Ezekiel (2 Kings 3:17): “Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore hear the warning from my mouth and give them warning from me.” It is just on account of this directly divine calling that the prophecy of the Israelites stands as unparalleled in the world as the chosen people itself. Not of their own will or power did the holy men speak, but moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21). In the case of Elisha it would have been impossible ever to say that the spirit of his master Elijah rested upon him, if he had fulfilled the desire of that king who clung firmly to the calf-worship, and at the same time tolerated idolatry, without saying to him a single word of rebuke. The reproof of Elisha deserves besides to be considered in another aspect. Ewald (Geschichte des V. Isr. iii. s. 487, 3d ed. s. 525) asserts: “There is not a single sign from which it appears that Elijah and his school made war upon this image-worship (i.e., that introduced by Jeroboam) in any such powerful manner as Hosea did at a later time. On the contrary, the opposite of this appears true, in the case where this school reaches its final aim, namely, at the re-establishment of the constitution of the kingdom by Jehu” (2 Kings 10:31). He also goes on to say that, even if Elijah himself was not favorable to the image-worship, yet in his time there was no controversy about it in the kingdom of the ten tribes, but that it was allowed to endure among the people. Duncker (Gesch. des Alterthums, i. s. 404) goes still further. He perceives in the worship of Jeroboam’s calf-image “a national reaction against the foreign worships which Solomon had introduced,” nay, even “the establishment of the Jehovah-worship,” and then says: “That those images did not shock the feelings of the people at that time, and did not give offence to the then existing measure of religious culture, is proved by the circumstance that such honored prophets as Elijah and Elisha had no objection to make to them.” These assertions find their direct contradiction in this reproof of Elisha to Jehoram. Jehoram was no idolater, he had even removed the statue of Baal which his father had set up. All the more firmly, however, did he cling to the cultus which had been introduced by Jeroboam (2 Kings 3:2-3). In like manner the prophets of Ahab, whom Elisha here definitely distinguishes from the prophets of Jezebel, were no idol-worshippers, as 1 Kings 22. shows, but they were false prophets of Jehovah (belonging to Jeroboam’s cultus). “When now Elisha, nevertheless, assails the king so severely, when he then declares solemnly, in answer to the prayer of the king, that he will not repulse him, that he will respond to this prayer, not for the king of Israel’s sake, but for the sake of Jehoshaphat, who was not addicted to the image-worship, then nothing is clearer than that he “made war mightily” not only upon the Baal-worship, but also upon the worship of the calf-image. How could Elijah, the re-establisher of the organic law of Israel, the second Moses, and his successor Elisha, have been so zealous against the transgression of one Mosaic commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” and then, on the other hand, have overlooked and allowed to pass without rebuke that other commandment which stands beside it and is most closely connected with it: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” (see 1 Kings 12. Hist. § 1)? [It is a very remarkable fact that Elijah and Elisha say nothing about the Jehovah-calf-worship. The nation may have been so devoted to Baal-worship at this time that the calf-worship did not deserve attention. If there is any reference to that worship in this rebuke of Jehoram, which is very doubtful indeed, then, to say the least, it is a very indirect and indifferent reference, not by any means in the style of Elijah or Elisha. When they had anything to condemn we find that they did it without circumlocution or innuendo. Even if we recognised in this rebuke a reference to the calf-worship, the difficulty would scarcely be lessened: Why did he not explicitly condemn this worship? Why do we find no direct reference to it in his recorded words?—W. G. S.] 4. The prophecy of Elisha forms the central point of the whole story; by the fulfilment of it he is confirmed, before the three kings of the entire army, as man of God and prophet. Although the fulfilment of this prophecy did not induce Jehoram to desist from his course (2 Kings 3:3), yet it seems to have accomplished this much in his case, that he abstained from all persecution of the prophet—did not dare to behave towards him as Ahab had done towards Elijah, but took up a friendly disposition towards him (cf. 2 Kings 4:13), and from that time on allowed him to reside at Samaria in peace (2 Kings 5:24). To reduce this prophecy to a mere foreboding or presentiment, would be to make of the prophet a dreamer and a hero of mere thoughtless daring, and to cut out the nerve of the entire narrative, which even Thenius reckons among the purely historical portions of these books; for it is evidently incorporated in the historical record before us, for the sake of this prophecy. Elisha needed for a mere supposition or presentiment no harp-player, who should raise him into a higher state of mind, and yet no one can call this feature of the story legendary or unhistorical; it is described rather as “in the highest degree characteristic of the more ancient Israelite prophecy” (Eisenlohr). He intended, then, to prophesy and to have his promises regarded, not as his own opinion but as divine revelation. This circumstance by itself contradicts the rationalistic explanation, which is again repeated by Knobel (Der Prophet, der Hebδ. ii. s. 95): “Elisha was a distinguished master in the knowledge of nature, for the times in which he lived. In this character he appears when he commands the soldiers, who are suffering for want of water, to dig ditches upon ditches, and thus procures them a rich supply. He seems to have recognised in the district the signs that it contained water, while these signs escaped the notice of those who were less instructed.” In order to perceive that the locality contained water, or, in general, in order to make use of his remarkable knowledge of nature, he did not need harp-music; he could do all that without music. If he, however, demanded music when he really relied upon his knowledge of nature, he sinks to the level of a mere wizard. It has been inferred, not without justice, from this passage in connection with 1 Samuel 10:5, that, as was remarked above, music was practised in the schools of the prophets. It must, therefore, have been regarded as an essential means for withdrawing the soul from the external world, and for disposing it to divine things, so that they ascribed to it, as a gift of God, great value. This reminds us involuntarily of Luther’s declaration (Luth. Werke, von Walch, xxii. s. 2062, 2248 sq.): “One of the finest and noblest gifts of God is music. This is very hostile to Satan, and with it we may drive off many temptations and evil thoughts.…. After theology, I give the next place and highest honor to music.…. It has often aroused and moved me, so that. I have won a desire to preach.…. I have always loved music. He who is master of this art is always well disposed and ready for anything which may arise. Music must necessarily be retained in the schools (N. B. in the higher, so-called Latin schools, exist). A schoolmaster must be able to sing, or not in the common schools, which did not then else I do not esteem him. We ought not to ordain young men to the office of preacher if they have not trained themselves and practised [singing] in the schools.” 5. The salvation of the Israelitish army from the destruction which threatened it “did not consist in a miracle which overruled the laws of nature, but only in this, that God caused the powers of nature, which He had prepared, to work in the manner which He had foreordained. As the abundance of water which suddenly presented itself was brought about in a natural way by a sudden flood of rain at a distance, so the illusion also, which was so ruinous to the Moabites, is to be explained in the natural manner which is stated in the text” (Keil). [The inference would be more just to say that, as the Moabites’ mistake is explained in a natural way in the text, so we are justified in adopting a natural explanation of the supply of water.—W. G. S.] Nevertheless this salvation of the army belongs to that series of extraordinary events which have their foundation in the selection of the Israelites to be the chosen people, and which bear witness to their especial, divine direction and guidance. The Old Testament knows nothing whatever of the difference between absolute and relative, or direct and indirect miracles. Every act of God in which there is revealed an especial, divine guidance and providence, especially a helping and saving might and grace of God, is called a miracle (Psalms 9:1 [Hebrews 2]; Psalms 71:17; Psalms 72:18; Psalms 77:11 [Hebrews 12]; Psalms 136:4). In this sense the action before us is also a miracle, which had for its object not only to confirm Elisha as prophet, but also to serve the end that all Israel, and especially its king, who was tolerating idolatry, should perceive that Jehovah alone is God, and should confess, with the psalmist: “Thou art the God that doest wonders; thou hast declared thy strength among the people” (Psalms 77:14). This act of God is great enough in itself, and does not need to be made greater, as it is by Krummacher: “Without delay they follow the counsel of the prophet and dig out the trenches. Hardly, however, is the sand penetrated when, oh! marvel to relate! the fresh springs of water bubble forth beneath the feet of the laborers,” or as it was by the old expositors, who assumed that God had miraculously influenced the eyes and imaginations of the Moabites (Menochius, Tostatus, and others). 6. The departure of the Israelitish army in consequence of the human sacrifice of the king of Moab, whether we understand by χֶ ?φֶ ?σ, ver 21, human or divine anger and dissatisfaction, is a very remarkable sign of the difference between the fundamental opinions of the Israelites and of the heathen. Whereas, among almost all heathen peoples, sacrifice culminates in human sacrifice, and this is considered the most holy and most effective, in the Mosaic system, on the other hand, it is regarded as the greatest and most detestable abomination in the sight of God. It is forbidden, not merely from considerations of humanity, but also because, as the Law declares with especial emphasis, the sanctuary of the Lord is thereby defiled, and His holy name (see notes on 1 Kings 6). is profaned (Leviticus 20:1-5; Leviticus 18:21). Human sacrifice stands in the most glaring contradiction to the revelation of God as the Holy One, in which character he was known in Israel alone; hence it was to be punished, without respite, by death (cf. Symb. d. Mos. Kult. ii. s. 333). From the preceding narrative we see how deep roots the detestation of human sacrifice had struck in the conscience of the people. Neither the cultus founded by Jeroboam, nor that of Baal, which Ahab had imported, with all its barbarism, had been able even to weaken this detestation. It was still so strong that a victorious army allowed itself to be led thereby to withdraw again from a land it had already subdued. Von Gerlach remarks, with justice: “This occurrence serves at the same time as a strong proof that Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter (Judges 11) cannot be understood literally.” On the contrary, Ewald infers (Gesch. iii. p. 518, 3d ed. 558) from this very narrative that “Israel at that time yet, for a great part, in its views of the subject of sacrifice, did not reach above or beyond the heathen conceptions,” for the ancient Canaanitic sacrifice still had the intended effect upon the people, “as if Jehovah himself were angry with the Israelites for having forced the king to this bold and horrible deed,” so that “the army, impelled by dumb horror, abandoned the fortress and commenced a retreat.” But, apart from, the fact that the text does not in the least force us to take χֶ ?φֶ ?σ of the wrath of God, this acceptation is opposed to the promise of the prophet, 2 Kings 3:18-19. For, according to that, it was Jehovah himself who helped Israel to take possession of the whole country, and to pursue the king to his capital. How then could they come to the opinion that the same Jehovah was now full of hard bitterness against Israel, which, after all, had only done what He himself had caused His prophet to promise them as His own act? It was not the supposed exasperation of Jehovah at the great victory of Israel which incited the army to return, but the conviction that the conquest and possession of the city over which so heavy blood-guilt and, at the same time, so severe a curse, was hanging, could not be either good-fortune or blessing for Israel. As for the act of Mesha itself, it does not indeed belong to the “most memorable signs of what a king can dare for his people, which has only just won its freedom” (Ewald, l. c.); it is rather a sign of a barbarism which violated all feeling of humanity, which was more than brutal, and in the highest degree detestable, on the part of a king who is so cowardly that, instead of fighting to the last as a brave soldier, and risking his own life for the sake of his first-born son, the future leader of his people, he puts him to death, rather than continue to pay as a tribute sheep and wool of rams (2 Kings 3:4) from his great wealth of flocks. In his case, the thing at stake was not so much the “freedom” of his people as his own freedom from a yearly tax, payable in kind. [See note under Homilet. and Pract. on 2 Kings 3:21-25. AND 2 Kings 3:1-3. Berleb. Bib.: He did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and many thousands do that with him, who nevertheless sing: “God has pleasure in us.” If we do not remain in the footsteps of our fathers and ancestors, yet we do not, at best, go far from them. If we perceive that a reformation or an improvement is necessary, then we are glad to let it rest at the first stage. We satisfy ourselves so easily, if we are only like father or mother, or a wicked elder brother, and do not disregard all scruples quite so much as others. Whether God is satisfied with that, however, or not, and whether He gives us the testimony of a good conscience in regard to it, about that we do not trouble ourselves.… If we do in truth tear down a statue of Baal or two, and adhere nevertheless to the sins of Jeroboam and to his calf-images, [i.e.] to those ordinances which, for political reasons, have been introduced and established in the Church, contrary to the will of the Lord, what will it help us?—J. Lange: Those are also to be accounted godless rulers, who do indeed ordain something good here and there, or abolish something bad, and perceive still more which their duty would require them to remove, but cannot bring themselves to do it, from motives of policy which are not pure, or pleasing to God. He who, for himself, abstains from that which is opposed to God’s word and commandment, but continues to tolerate it in those who are connected with him, or subject to him, shows thereby that he is not in earnest in his own obedience to God, and that his principles are deduced only from external considerations and relations. 2 Kings 3:4-27. The War of Israel with the Moabites. (a) The cause of it, and the preparation for it; (b) the danger of perishing; (c) the result. 2 Kings 3:4. Cramer: When kings and lords fall away from God, then their subjects must fall away from them; and when the fathers are disobedient to God, the children and servants must also be disobedient to them, for their punishment, for with the froward, God shows himself froward [perverse]. (Psalms 18:26 [Hbr. 27]). 2 Kings 3:5. It was not on account of poverty and need and oppressive subjection that Mesha threw off his obligations (he was very rich) and rebelled, but from avarice and arrogance. Those are still the ordinary motives to insurrection and rebellion in individual instances, or among entire nations. The very ones who have much are often most inclined to divest themselves of their obligations. 2 Kings 3:6-8, cf. above, under Hom. and Pract. on 1 Kings 22:4. Osiander: When the unbelieving and wicked need the help of the pious, they tempt them with friendly words: secretly, however, they behave in a hostile manner towards them.—Cramer: Covenants between believers and unbelievers are dangerous. 2 Kings 3:8. “A man’s heart deviseth his way; but the Lord directeth his steps” (Proverbs 16:9). Therefore, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths” (Proverbs 3:5-6; cf. James 4:13-15).—By which way shall we go up? Only the narrow way leads upward, only upon this is the Lord with us (Matthew 7:13-14). 2 Kings 3:9-12. Krummacher: The Expedition against Moab. (a) The distress of the kings; (b) the seek refuge with the prophet. 2 Kings 3:9. Cramer: If God did not let us sometimes fall into necessity and want, we should not often think of His word and His servants (Psalms 67:2-3 [Hebrews 3, 4]). 2 Kings 3:10-11. In need and distress the state of a man’s heart is brought to light. Jehoram falls into despair, he does not know what counsel to take, nor how to help himself; instead of seeking the Lord and calling to Him for help, he accuses Him, and casts the reproach upon Him that He means to destroy three kings at once. In prosperity and in days of good fortune, resisting, and building upon human wisdom and power: in time of need, forthwith despairing and helpless—that is the disposition of the heart of the natural man who does not know the living God, or, at least, knows Him only by name. Jehoshaphat, who had always bent his heart to seek God (2 Chronicles 19:3), does not wring his hands in despair, but is quiet and composed. He thinks within himself: The Lord has neither now, nor ever, withdrawn himself from His people. Therefore he trusts, and asks: Is there no prophet of the Lord here? “He that dwelleth in the secret place,” &c. (Psalms 91:1-2).—Krummacher: Jehoshaphat falls into the same calamity with Jehoram. He who goes hand in hand with the godless, and makes common cause with them, must be contented if he is cast to the earth at the same time with them, when the lightning strikes their house.—Servants often know more and better where and with whom God’s word, consolation, and counsel are to be found than their masters, who, however, ought to inquire into this before all others. 2 Kings 3:12. “The word of the Lord is with him.” It is the right testimony and the best one, when it can be said of a servant of God: He does not preach himself, his own, or other men’s wisdom; his words are not sounding brass nor tinkling cymbal, but a hammer which breaks rocks in pieces, and an ointment which heals wounds.—Wόrt. Summ.: So long as men are free from distress and danger, they ask nothing about the poor ministers of the Gospel, they take no notice of them, they wish to have nothing to do with them, they throw their faithful warning to the winds; but when an accident or a death occurs, then they are glad to see the despised preacher, and they desire to make use of his services and of his prayers.—Three kings descend from their elevation and come humbly and with petitions to the man who once was a servant of Elijah, and poured water over his hands, of whom they had not even known so much as that he had joined the expedition. Him who is proud He can humble (Daniel 4:34). He raiseth up the lowly from the dust, that He may seat him by the side of princes (1 Samuel 2:4; 1 Samuel 2:7). So now emperors and kings bow the knee before Him, who came to His own and His own received Him not, who did not have a place to lay His head, who was so despised that people covered their faces before Him, and they confess, to the glory of God, that He is the Lord. 2 Kings 3:13-19. Krummacher: The Miraculous Assistance. (a) Elisha’s address to the three Kings; (b) the minstrel; (c) the prophet’s counsel.—Elisha before the three Kings as the one who stands in the Presence of the Lord. (a) His zeal for the Lord; (b) his independence and fearlessness; (c) his prophecy. (See Historical, § 3.) 2 Kings 3:13. Starke: Upright servants of God have an unterrified independence, and speak the truth distinctly to the face of the great as well as of the humble (1 Kings 18:18).—Elisha stood before the Lord, the living God; Jehoram before the calf-god. That was not only a difference in religious views and opinions, but also an entirely different stand-point in life. Where there is a life in God, there there can be no fellowship with those who have denied and abandoned the living God; the two ways diverge directly and decidedly (2 Corinthians 6:15). The relation in which a man stands to God is decisive for his relation to other men; it divides him from some by a separation which is just as wide as the communion into which it brings him with others is close.—The children of this world have their prophets, whom they gladly hear because they speak just what the ears of their hearers are itching to hear. These prophets are to be found not only in the priestly class, but also among civilians, among poets, and learned men, in professorial chairs, and on the lecturer’s platform. It is true of them to-day: “Thy friends have set thee on and have prevailed against thee: thy feet are sunk in the mire, and they are turned away back” (Jeremiah 38:22; Isaiah 3:12). When thy conscience awakes and thy sin torments thee, go to them and ask them, they have no consolation but that of the high-priest, Matthew 27:4. When thy soul is saddened, even unto death, go and ask them; that which belongs to thy peace in time and in eternity they cannot give thee, for they themselves have not peace. 2 Kings 3:14. He who has renounced God and His word can make no claim to esteem, even though he be a king; fidelity to God and holding fast to His word are what make a man truly estimable, even though he were the poorest and lowliest.—God does not let the righteous perish with the unrighteous and godless (Genesis 18:25); it rather comes to pass that, for the sake of a single righteous man, many godless persons are saved and preserved (Genesis 39:5), in order that they may give up their habits and may turn to that God who is rich in compassion and grace, and who wishes, by kindness, to lead sinners to repentance. 2 Kings 3:15. Since a prophet like Elisha called for harp-music, and was thereby brought into a state of mind which was fitted to receive divine revelations, therefore we may and ought to regard music as a gift of God, which is given to us that we may thereby elevate our hearts and bring them into a holy disposition. It is lack of understanding and lack of gratitude to exclude it from the Church. The Scriptures say: “Praise the Lord with harp,” &c. (Psalms 33:2-3). Whoever sings and makes melody unto the Lord in his heart will do it also with his mouth and with his hands.—Like every other gift of God which is given us for our salvation and blessing, music also can be abused: “It is a dangerous art, this mover of souls, when it is employed in the service of the world, of vanity, and of sin” (Krummacher).—The world also often exclaims: “Bring me a minstrel!” not, however, in order to lift up the heart (sursum corda) and to soothe the soul, but rather to fan the fire of the smouldering passions into a flame, and to awaken the fleshly lusts that war against the soul. 2 Kings 3:16-19. The great Promise of Elisha. (a) Its contents; (b) its aim and object.—The Lord gives beyond what we pray for, beyond what we understand; He not only saves from need and danger, but He also gives the victory besides, out of pure, undeserved grace. That is the fundamental feature of all divine promises. The Lord not only does not deal with us according to our sins, but He gives us, besides that, the victory, through Him in whom all promises are yea! and amen! (2 Corinthians 1:20). 2 Kings 3:21-25. The Fall of Moab a divine Vengeance upon fleshly Secureness and Pride, upon Avarice and Covetousness. This is written for the warning of individuals as well as of peoples. [This interpretation of the rebellion of Moab, as the result of avarice, or perhaps, more strictly speaking, of niggardliness, is not justified by the text, and could not fairly be presented in a homiletical treatment of the passage. We have not far to search for the cause of revolt. A nation which is tributary to another may well have other and nobler reasons for rebellion than to save the amount of the tribute. We have no reason for imputing any baser motivest to the Moabites. They may have been influenced by baser ones, but, so long as that is not even hinted at in the text, it is not a legitimate subject for homiletical treatment. The inscription referred to in the Exeg. notes on 2 Kings 3:4 is very valuable as giving a glimpse of the relations between Moab and Israel at this time “from the other side.”—W. G. S.]—Cramer: When God is about to punish any one He first causes him to become secure, proud, bold, and arrogant, then He takes away from him cunning, sense, and understanding, and strikes him with blindness. 2 Kings 3:26-27. The disgraceful act of the king of Moab shows how low man can sink and fall when he does not know the living God. By the most abominable crime he thinks that he will do God a service and save himself (Romans 1:28). Even yet human sacrifices occur among the heathen; how much we have to thank the Lord that He has saved us from the power of darkness, and has caused His holy word to enlighten us. Where this light shines, there the night of superstition flees, with all its abominations.—Men often offer the hardest outward sacrifice more willingly than they do the inner sacrifice, which alone God demands, and which pleases him (Psalms 51:17). 2 Kings 3:27. Wόrt. Summ.: When we see an abominable crime going on, or hear of it, we ought not to laugh at it, or to feel a pleasure in it, but we ought to loathe it, and turn away from it, that we may not be involved in the punishment, which will certainly come.—We must renounce an object or a possession which is stained by bloodguilt and curses, although ever so great temporal advantage may be connected with it. We must renounce it for the sake of God and conscience. Footnotes: 2 Kings 3:3.—[ξִ ?ξֶּ ?πָּ ?δ, sing-fem. suff. referring to a plural noun, when separated from it by a considerable interval, as in 2 Kings 10:26; 2 Kings 17:22. 2 Kings 3:4.—[πֹ ?χֵ ?γ is well translated by sheep-master. The word was unintelligible to the Sept., who reproduce it in Greek letters. They add ἐντῆ ἐπαναστάσει, “after the insurrection,” a detail which does not seem to be well founded. 2 Kings 3:4.—[ΰֵ ?ιμִ ?ινφָ ?ξֶ ?ψ. The words are best understood as suggested above. So the Sept. (ἐπὶ πόκων, either, in lanam, or in tonsuram, Schl.), Thenius, Bunsen, Bδhr, and Ewald (Widder, i.e., Vliesze, Wollc). Keil undecided between this and “wool of lambs or rams.” 2 Kings 3:13.—[ΰַ ?μλִּ ?ι. The Sept. and Vulg. take this as a question; so also Ewald, § 324, b: the same as μὴ ὅτι—a question implying fear, and expecting an answer confirmatory of the fear. Keil, Bunsen, Bδhr, Thenius, all take it as in the E. V. 2 Kings 3:16.—[Ew. § 328, c, takes ςָ ?ωׂ ?δ as standing for the first person, and compares 1 Kings 22:30. 2 Kings 3:23.—[πֶ ?ηֶ ?ψְ ?αεּ, they have fought. The hof. inf. abs. δָ ?ηֳ ?ψֵ ?α is joined with it in the adverbial usage, to be destroyed.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 3:24.—The keri εַ ?ιַּ ?λּ ?εּ is no improvement. We can read εַ ?ιָּ ?αεֹ, as in 1 Kings 12:12, where it stands for εַ ?ιָּ ?αεֹ ?ΰ (Bδhr). [The Sept. read εַ ?ιָּ ?αֹ ?ΰεּ αεֹ ?ΰ, “And they went in farther and farther, and smote Moab more and more.” Thenius and Bunsen adopt this, and it makes the best sense. δַ ?λּ ?εֹ ?ϊ is the const. used for the abs.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 3:25.—[δִ ?ωְׁ ?ΰִ ?ιψ is infin. as δִ ?ωְׁ ?ξִ ?ιγ in 1 Kings 15:29; cf. also 2 Kings 10:11; 2 Kings 10:17. Ew. § 238, d. (Keil). Fόrst, in the concordance, takes it as perf. ςַ ?γ must then be taken for ςַ ?γΞΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ.—W. G. S.] FOURTH SECTIONElisha’s Prophetical Acts2 Kings 4:1 to 2 Kings 8:15A.—Elisha with the widow who was burdened with debt, with the Shunammite, and with the pupils of the prophets during the famine2 Kings 4:1-441 Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets [prophet-disciples] unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen. 2And Elisha said unto her, What shall I do for thee? tell me, what hast thou in the house? And she said, Thine handmaid hath not any thing in the house, save a pot of [omit pot of] oil 3[for anointing]. Then he said, Go, borrow thee vessels abroad of all thy neighbors, even empty vessels; borrow not a few. 4And when thou art come in, thou shalt shut the door upon thee and upon thy sons, and shalt pour out into all those vessels, arid thou shalt set aside that which is full. 5So she went from him, and shut the door upon her and upon her sons, who brought the vessels to her, and she poured out. 6And it came to pass, when the vessels were full, that she said unto her son, Bring me yet a vessel. And he said unto her, There is not a vessel more. And the oil stayed. 7Then she came and told the man of God. And he said, Go, sell the oil, and pay thy debt, and live thou and thy children of the rest. 8And it fell on a day, that Elisha passed to Shunem, where was a great woman; and she constrained him to eat bread. And so it was, that, as oft as he passed by, he turned in thither to eat bread. 9And she said unto her husband, Behold now, I perceive that this is a holy man of God, which passeth by us continually. 10Let us make a little chamber, I pray thee, on the wall; and let us set for him there a bed, and a table, and a stool, and a candlestick; and it shall be, when he cometh to us, that he shall turn in thither. 11And it fell on a day, that he came thither, and he turned into the chamber and lay there. 12And he said to Gehazi his servant, Call this Shunammite. And when he had called her, 13she stood before him [Gehazi]. And he said unto him, Say now unto her, Behold, thou hast been careful for us with all this care; what is to be done for thee? wouldest thou be spoken for to the king, or to the captain of the host? And she answered, I dwell among mine own people. 14And he said, What then is to be done for her? And Gehazi answered, Verily she hath no child [son], and her husband is old. 15And he said, Call her. And when he had called her she stood in the door. 16And he said, About this season, according to the time of life [of the next year], thou shalt embrace a son. And she said, Nay, my lord, thou man of God, do not lie unto [deceive] thine handmaid. 17And the woman conceived, and bare a son at that season that Elisha had said unto her, according to the time of life [in the following year]. 18And when the child was grown, it fell on a day, that he went out to his father to the reapers. 19And he said unto his father, My head, my head! And he said to a lad, Carry him to his mother. 20And when he had taken him, and brought him to his mother, he sat on her knees till noon, and then died. 21And she went up, and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out. 22And she called unto her husband, and said, Send me, I pray thee, one of the young men, and One of the asses, that I may run to the man of God, and come again. 23And he said, Wherefore wilt thou go to him to-day? it is neither new moon, nor sabbath. And she said, It shall be well. 24Then she saddled an ass, and said to her servant. Drive, and go forward; slack not thy riding for me, except I bid thee. 25So she went and came unto the man of God to Mount Carmel. And it came to pass, when the man of God saw her afar off [coming], that he said to Gehazi his servant, Behold, yonder is that Shunammite: 26Run now, I pray thee, to meet her, and say unto her, Is it well with thee? is it well with thy husband? is it well with the child? And she answered, It is well. 27And when she came to the man of God to the hill, she caught him by the feet: but Gehazi came near to thrust her away. And the man of God said, Let her alone; for her soul is vexed within her: and the Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me. 28Then she said, Did I desire a son of my Lord? did I not say, Do not deceive me? 29Then he said to Gehazi, Gird up thy loins, and take my staff in thine hand, and go thy way: if thou meet any man salute him not; and if any salute thee, answer him not again: and lay my staff upon the face of the child. 30And the mother of the child said, As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. And he arose and followed her. 31And Gehazi passed on before them, and laid the staff upon the face of the child; but there was neither voice, nor hearing. Wherefore he went again to meet him, and told him, saying, The child is not awaked. 32And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed. 33He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the Lord. 34And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and he stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm. 35Then he returned, and walked in the house to and fro; and went up, and stretched himself upon him: and the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes. 36And he called Gehazi, and said, Call this Shunammite. So he called her. And when she was come in unto him, he said, Take up thy son. 37Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground, and took up her son and went out. 38And Elisha came again to Gilgal: and there was a dearth in the land; and the sons of the prophets were sitting before him: and he said unto his servant, Set on the great pot, and seethe pottage for the sons of the prophets. 39And one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered thereof wild gourds his lap full, and came and shred them into the pot of pottage; for they knew them not. 40So they poured out for the men to eat. And it came to pass, as they were eating of the pottage, that they cried out, and said, O thou man of God, there is death in the pot. And they could not eat thereof. 41But he said, Then bring meal. And he cast it into the pot; and he said, Pour out for the people, that they may eat. And there was no harm in the pot. 42And there came a man from Baal-shalisha, and brought the man of God bread of the first-fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and full ears of corn in the husk thereof [garden-corn in a sack]. And he said, Give unto the people, that they may eat. 43And his servitor said, What, should I set this before a hundred men? He said again, Give the people, that they may eat: for thus saith the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave thereof. 44So he set it before them, and they did eat, and left thereof, according to the word of the Lord. AND 2 Kings 4:1. A certain woman of the, &c. It is clear from the passage, 2 Kings 4:1-7, that the sons of the prophets were not exclusively young men, but were also often fathers of families, and so did not lead a cloister life. Perhaps there was an arrangement for a temporary life in common, or a person might join himself more or less closely to one of the principal communities of the prophets. According to Josephus and the rabbis, the woman was the widow of Obadiah (1 Kings 18:3 sq.), who, they think, had exhausted his fortune in the provision for persecuted prophets, and so had fallen into debt. This singular legend rests upon no foundation other than the fact that the woman says that her husband “feared the Lord.” which is also stated in respect to Obadiah. By these words she does not mean to say that the fear of the Lord had in any way been the cause of his falling into poverty, but that he had not contracted debts through folly. What the creditor demanded in this case, he was justified in demanding according to the Law, cf. Leviticus 25:39; Matthew 18:26 (Michaelis, Mos. Recht, iii. 148). From the forms of the suffix ιλι ,λι 2 Kings 4:2-3; 2 Kings 4:7, and the form ΰϊι for ΰϊ 2 Kings 4:16; 2 Kings 4:23, which have been designated as Syriacisms, we cannot infer that a later author here interpolated a fragment of his own composition, as was shown by Keil in his edition of 1845. The ordinary translation of ΰָ ?ρεּ ?κְ ωָׁ ?ξֶ ?ο by “pot of oil” is not established by the necessary proofs; ΰָ ?ρεּ ?κְ means unctio, not ointment-jar (Gesenius), so that the phrase means, word for word, “oil for anointing;” Bφttcher: quantum ad unctionem sufficit. Anointing with oil is an essential part of bathing among Orientals, 2 Samuel 12:20 (cf. Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 357 sq.). She was entirely destitute of the oil which was essential for the preparation of food—she had only oil for anointing. Vulg. nisi parum olei quo ungar. The locking of the door had no other object than to keep aloof every interruption from without. The action in question was not an ordinary, simply external, operation, but an act which was to be performed by the command of the Man of God, and with the heart directed towards God, that is, in faith, so that it was to be completed, not in the noise and distraction of every-day life, but in quietness and solitude. 2 Kings 4:6. And the oil stayed, i.e., it did not cease to flow until all the vessels which were on hand were full. 2 Kings 4:7. Of the rest. Josephus: περισσότερονἐκτῆςτιμῆςτοῦ ἐλαίου. The woman would not make use of that which had come into her hands by the interference of the prophet, without asking directions from him. She does not regard it as her own unconditioned possession, but she leaves it to the prophet to decide in regard to the use to be made of it. He directs her, before all else, to discharge her debt, and then to make use of whatever may remain for their sustenance; he desires no pay or reward for himself. 2 Kings 4:8. And it fell on a day, &c. The word δַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν causes the presumption that the narrative in its first division (2 Kings 4:8-17), follows the preceding chronologically, and it is not placed after it simply because it treats of a rich woman, in contrast with a poor one. From the 23d ver. compared with the 9th, we see that Elisha often betook himself from Samaria (2 Kings 2:25), to Carmel. As Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho, where the schools of the prophets were (chap. 2), were south of Samaria, we may suppose that Carmel, which lay in the middle of the northern part of the kingdom, was the place where the faithful worshippers of Jehovah, and the attached followers of Elijah and Elisha, who lived in the north, came together from time to time, and were strengthened in their faith, and instructed by the prophet, as is presupposed in 2 Kings 4:23. The city of Shunem [see Robinson, ii. 325] was situated in the tribe of Issachar, on the slope of the so-called Little Hermon, so that it was not much farther from Samaria than Carmel, not, however, upon the road from Gilgal thitherward (Winer), for Shunem lay to the northeast of Samaria, and Gilgal to the southwest. Elisha had to go across the plain of Jezreel in order to come to Shunem, and then go on from there to Carmel. 2 Kings 4:9. And she said unto her husband, &c. Many a one may have been called or called himself “Man of God,” and “Prophet,” at that time, who was not such in reality By the epithet “holy,” the woman designates Elisha as a real and not a merely so-called Man of God. We have to understand by ςֲ ?μִ ?ιַּ ?ϊΞχִ ?ιψ “a chamber built upon the flat roof of the house, with walls which would be a protection against every attack of the weather—not a lean-to or addition on the side of the house” (Thenius). In such a room Elisha would be protected from every interruption, such as it was hardly possible to avoid entirely in the house, and there he might pass his time in quietness (cf. 1 Kings 17:19). 2 Kings 4:12. He said to Gehazi, &c. With regard to the origin and native place of Gehazi, who is here mentioned for the first time, we have no information whatever, neither do we know when or why Elisha chose him for his servant.—She stood before him, i.e., before Gehazi, not before Elisha, as Thenius, among others, thinks, and he then assumes that, although she stood before him, Elisha spoke the words, 2 Kings 4:13, to her through Gehazi, because he “would not communicate directly with her, lest he should compromise his dignity.” However, he does this immediately afterwards (2 Kings 4:16). Moreover, there is no instance at all of a prophet speaking to a person who stood before him through a third person. 2 Kings 4:13 is to be taken as a kind of parenthesis, in which the omission of that which Elisha said to Gehazi, when he told him to call the Shunammite, is filled up: εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ at the beginning of the verse is pluperfect. Elisha wished to make some return to his hostess, who had received him with Gehazi and entertained him so often, but he did not know what would be acceptable to her, a wealthy woman. In order to learn this, he does not address himself directly to her, but directs his servant to ask the necessary questions, that she may express herself with less embarrassment and less reserve. The question: Wouldst thou be spoken for to the king or to the captain of the host? presupposes that Elisha at that time stood in favor and respect at court, yet we cannot conclude from this with certainty that by “king” in this place is meant Jehu, whom Elisha caused to be anointed (Ewald). The commander of the army is named in connection with the king as the most powerful and most influential man, and not “because he might make demands in the way of oppressive requisitions” (Thenius). In the answer of the woman, the words: Among mine own people, are put first for the sake of the contrast: At the court, among the high and great of the land, I have nothing to ask for or to desire. In: I dwell, there lies, at the same time, a notion of a sure, undisturbed and contented life (1 Kings 4:25; Psalms 15:1; Psalms 61:4 [Hebrews 5]; Proverbs 2:21). Perhaps she wished to show, at the same time, that she had not entertained the prophet for the sake of the return, but for his own sake, and for the sake of God. When now Gehazi communicates this answer to his master, the latter feels all the more bound to do something for her, and he says to Gehazi (2 Kings 4:14): Hast thou then not observed in the interview, what other thing would be welcome to her? Dost thou not thyself know of anything? Gehazi answers: I could indeed conjecture something which would be her soul’s desire, but neither we nor any other mortals could do that for her: She hath no child [son]. To be barren was regarded as a disgrace (1 Samuel 1:11; Luke 1:25). Elisha now summons her to himself (2 Kings 4:15); she comes, but does not go into the room. Out of modesty and respect she only goes to the door. To the announcement of the prophet (2 Kings 4:16), which reminds one of Gen 18:10; Genesis 18:14, the woman replies, surprised and humble, with the words: Do not lie unto [deceive] thine handmaid! i.e., do not excite deceitful and vain hopes in me. [If it were not for the “Call her” in the 15th verse, one would think of the course of the details somewhat thus: She is called—Elisha gives to Gehazi the directions in 2 Kings 4:13, which he carries out in an interview with her, upon which she replies, 2 Kings 4:13 at the end. While she is standing by, perhaps before the door, the conference in 2 Kings 4:14 takes place, when the prophet addresses her himself. The second direction to summon her, however, breaks up the consistency of this theory. The reason suggested above by Bδhr, why Elisha commissions Gehazi to speak to her, is a good one; and the hypothesis which is simplest and most satisfactory is to suppose that he carried out this commission, and that he received the reply at the end of 2 Kings 4:13. This he reports to Elisha, and they hold the conference in 2 Kings 4:14. The only reason Elisha has for communicating with her through, Gehazi is now removed, and he summons her to himself and addresses her directly.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 4:18. And when the child was grown, &c. The illness of which the boy complained, 2 Kings 4:19, was probably a sun-stroke, which befell him as he was in the open field, at the hottest season of the year, among the reapers (cf. Jdt 8:2-3; Psalms 121:6). The mother carried the body into the upper chamber and shut the door upon it, hardly with the sole object that “nothing should happen to the corpse in the meantime” (Thenius), for she might have provided against that in other ways; on the contrary, she meant to keep the death of the child secret for a while. For this reason she did not make it known to her husband or to Gehazi (2 Kings 4:23; 2 Kings 4:26). Evidently she had the secret hope that the man of God, who had promised her a son in the name of Jehovah, and had not deceived her, could help her to recover him. In that she carries the child to the prophet’s chamber and lays him upon his bed, she already entrusts him in some degree to him, whom she prepares to bring to the spot without delay. This last she would not have done, however, if she had been given over to “the belief, which was so widespread in ancient times, that articles which had been touched or used by thaumaturgi, possessed miraculous efficacy in themselves” (Winer). She will not undertake the journey without the knowledge of her husband; the cause of it, however, she does not state to him, but answers to his questions only: ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν. She also limits her reply to Gehazi to the same short word (2 Kings 4:26), although in that case it is commonly interpreted somewhat differently. In the 23d verse it is said to mean: pax tibi esto, i.e., vale! or, do not be alarmed! or, let me have my will! In 2 Kings 4:26, on the contrary, it is declared to be a simple affirmative reply to the question: Yes, it is well! It is impossible, however, that the same word, in the mouth of the same person, in two instances which follow each other directly, should have two different significations, and, what is more, it would contain an untruth in 2 Kings 4:26, if it were thus understood. Clericus remarks correctly that it stands like the Latin recte! (cf. the German: gut!) when one does not wish to give a definite reply to a question, and yet wishes to pacify the inquirer (Keil). It follows from the remark of the man in 2 Kings 4:23, that religious assemblies were held on the new moons and sabbaths, although the Law only speaks of a sacrifice on those days (Numbers 28:9; Numbers 28:11), and that, for want of legal priests and levites, they collected around men of God, i.e., prophets, to hear the divine word. 2 Kings 4:25. So she went and came unto, &c. On ξִ ?πֶּ ?βֶ ?γ see 2 Kings 2:7; 2 Kings 2:15. Elisha showed, by sending his servant to meet her and to salute her, how highly he esteemed this woman. To the salutation of Gehazi she returns only the short, indefinite answer: “Well! in order not to be detained by further explanations” (Keil). She hastens to the prophet himself, and when she comes near to him, overcome by the grief which she had repressed until then, she clasps his feet, certainly not in silence, or without speaking a word, but begging for his assistance. In her conduct in clasping his feet, Gehazi sees, not so much something annoying to his master (Kφster), as rather an offence against his dignity (John 4:27); he, therefore, seeks to prevent it, but Elisha rebukes him. The words, 2 Kings 4:27 : Let her alone, for … hath not told me, do not mean, “We must first hear what she has to lament over” (Kφster); they rather presuppose that she had declared the cause of her grief and of her prayer for help when she first embraced his feet. The words: The Lord hath hid it from me, contain the explanation and excuse for his not having come to Shunem to prevent the death of the child. [It is a better explanation, that the mother, in excess of grief, says nothing at first, and that Elisha commands Gehazi to allow her to collect herself and tell the trouble, which he as yet is ignorant of. The idea that the prophet ordinarily would know of an impending calamity and hasten to prevent it, is objectionable on many accounts. We must rather compare places like 2 Samuel 7:3 sq., which show the fallibility of the prophetic knowledge and judgment. See notes on 2 Kings 4:29.—W. G. S.] The stricken mother then repeats to the prophet his own promise (2 Kings 4:16), meaning to say thereby, at the same time: I did not complain of my childlessness and did not demand a son; now, however, I am more unhappy than before, for it is better never to have a child than to have one and lose it. 2 Kings 4:29. Then he said to Gehazi, &c. The grief and the lamentation of the woman moved the compassionate heart of the prophet so much, that he desired to bring her relief as soon as possible. He therefore commanded his servant to make himself ready for a journey (Luke 12:35; Acts 12:8; Jeremiah 1:17), and said: Take my staff in thine hand, and go thy way: and lay my staff upon the face of the child. The staff of the prophet is not, of course, his travelling staff, but, like the staff (sceptre) of a king, the badge of the prophetical gift which he had received from God, i.e., of might and strength. Moses, the prototype of all prophets, was instituted into his office as leader of the people of Jehovah with these words: “And thou shalt take this rod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs” (Exodus 4:17). Moses himself therefore calls it: “The rod of God in mine hand” (Exodus 17:5; Exodus 17:9), or: “The rod from before the Lord” (Numbers 20:8-9), cf. notes on 2 Kings 2:8. Elisha, in that he gives his prophet’s staff into the hand of Gehazi, commissions him to execute a prophetical act in his stead; by means of the divine power, of which the staff was the symbol, he is to awaken the child out of the death-sleep. He is to lay it upon the face of the child, because death had fallen upon him through the head (2 Kings 4:19), and because life shows itself first of all in the face. The question why Elisha gave such a commission to his servant at all, is answered by the intervening clause in 2 Kings 4:29 : If thou meet any man salute him not, &c. These words are often understood to mean that Gehazi is to guard himself from all distraction, fix his thoughts only upon God and the commission which had been entrusted to him, and sink his soul in prayer. This sense, however, cannot by any means be established; and why should the prophet, if he wished to say this, not have expressed it distinctly, and not in a roundabout way? To refrain from saluting is by no means the same thing as to lose one’s self in prayer. It is well known that salutations are far more ceremonious in the Orient than with us, and that, e.g., inferiors always remain standing until persons of higher rank pass by (cf. Luke 10:4, and Lightfoot on the passage; Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 501), whereby delay was often occasioned. Elisha commands his servant, in the first place, to start without delay, and then not to tarry at all by the way. This command to hasten can scarcely have had any other ground than that he hoped, in spite of the declaration of the woman, that life had not yet entirely left the child, and that utter decease might yet be prevented by swift interference. Because he did not believe that he himself with the Shunammite could accomplish the whole journey (six hours) so quickly as appeared necessary, he despatched his servant, or at least sent him on before, and gave him his prophet’s staff, not in the belief that the staff, as such, had any magical miraculous power, but on the assumption that, in such an urgent case, he might commit the prophetical gift, of which the staff was the insigne and symbol, to his servant, and so make him his representative. In this, however, he was mistaken, however good his intention was. Peter Martyr remarks: Videtur Elis�us non recte fecisse, qui facultatem edendi miracula alteri delegare voluit, quod ipsi non est datum. A similar case, where a prophet falls into error, is found 2 Samuel 7:3 sq. The importunity of the woman, that Elisha himself should come (2 Kings 4:30), proceeded from the conviction that the boy was already completely dead, and that now not Gehazi, but only the prophet himself, who had promised her the son, could help. To this deep confidence he responds. Every other acceptation of the passage is entangled in great difficulties. Almost all the expositors proceed from the assumption that Elisha knew very well that Gehazi could not accomplish any miracle, although he had his staff in his hand. They state variously the reason why he, nevertheless, gave him this commission. According to Kφster, Elisha wished to show himself as the only miracle-worker, and magnify his own importance. According to Keil, he did it in order “to show to the Shunammite and her connections, and to Gehazi himself, that the power to perform miracles did not appertain, in any magical way, to himself or to his staff, but rather that miracles, as works of divine omnipotence, could only be executed by faith and prayer.” According to Krummacher, Elisha acted thus in “a pedagogical intention,” in order to prepare shame and confusion for the “vain and pert youth,” who would gladly have thrown about himself “the grandeur and glory of his master.” In every one of these interpretations, however, the prophet appears in a very ambiguous light, for he would have given, according to any one of them, a formal commission, in regard to which he knew beforehand that it could not be executed. The sending of Gehazi, and the entrusting to him of the prophet’s staff, took place, in that case, only for appearances; nay, he would have deceived not only his servant, but also the mother who was so burdened by sorrow, and who already felt herself deceived (2 Kings 4:28); and this time he would have done it knowingly and intentionally, an hypothesis which is not consistent, under any circumstances, with a sincere and ingenuous character, and especially is unworthy of a “holy Man of God” (2 Kings 4:9). Such a deception would be the less to be forgiven, because the command of the greatest possible haste is added. In fact, this last command is not consistent with any one of the proposed interpretations; it would be, at the very least, utterly superfluous and objectless. As for Keil’s view in particular, we cannot see why the prophet should have intended to give a general instruction in regard to the performance of miracles, just on this special occasion, where haste was of such great importance. 2 Kings 4:31. And Gehazi passed on before them, &c. In order to explain why Gehazi could not awake the boy, the rabbis assert that he was disobedient to the command not to salute any one by the way, bat to make all the haste possible. This is contradicted decidedly by the fact that, before Elisha arrived with the mother of the boy at Shunem, Gehazi had already discharged his commission, although in vain, and was on the way back again when he met the prophet. He must, therefore, have made great haste. Theodoret supposes another reason, viz., that Elisha knew that Gehazi was φιλότιμοςκαὶ κενόδοξος, so that he would boast of his commission to those whom he met by the way: ἡ δὲκενοδοξίατὴνθαυματουργίανκωλύει. This acceptation has been the general one. Krummacher stated it in the strongest terms. He knows exactly how Gehazi conducted himself in his vanity: “What a ceremonious mien the silly youth puts on, with what pompous gravity he strides into the house of death,” &c. Others think that he could not accomplish the work because the mother of the child had not given him her confidence (Seb. Smith), or because the faith which is necessary to such a work was wanting in him (Grotius). All these attempts, however, which find the cause of Gehazi’s want of success in any blamable conduct of his, are contradicted by the utter silence of the text. Even though Gehazi, at a later time, showed himself fond of money (2 Kings 5:20 sq.), yet it does not follow that he was fond of honor. In the other case he was severely punished; here, however, where the life of an only son is at stake, the grave transgression which is attributed to him is not rebuked with a single word of reproof or warning, wherefore we must conclude that he did not deserve any correction, but had executed everything which was entrusted to him, as the text distinctly narrates. That he was not able, in spite of this, to awake the boy, was not his fault, inasmuch as Elisha, although he had given him, it is true, the external symbol of his prophetical might and power (the ψεּ ?ηַ, spirit of Jehovah), yet had not considered that this might and power was a special gift of God, which he might not freely delegate according to his own will—which he therefore could not communicate or transfer to his servant without further consideration. Starke justly remarks that Elisha “gave this command (2 Kings 4:29) from some overhaste, without having a divine incentive to it.” 2 Kings 4:32. And when Elisha was come into the house, &c. The want of success of Gehazi’s commission spurred on the prophet all the more to do what he could in order to restore the boy to life. In the main he proceeds, as his father and master Elijah had once done (see 1 Kings 17, Exeg. on 2 Kings 4:20 sq. and Hist. § 6). He calls upon Jehovah and stretches himself upon the body of the boy. This latter gesture is described more in detail here (2 Kings 4:34) than in the other passage: on the contrary, the words of the prayer are given there, which are wanting here. Whereas Elijah there stretched himself three times upon the boy (2 Kings 4:21), Elisha does so only twice, but walks up and down in the house in the meantime. The conclusion has often been drawn, as it has been last of all by Keil, that the difference in the events consisted in this, that in the case of Elijah, the child, at his prayer, “straightway” came to life again, while in the case of Elisha, on the other hand, “the resuscitation took place by degrees,” from which we may perceive “that Elisha did not possess a double measure of the spirit of Elijah.” This notion does not, however, seem to us to be completely justified by the text. Why should Elisha, upon whom the spirit of Elijah rested (2 Kings 2:15), and of whom more miracles are narrated to us than of Elijah, have been able to perform only gradually and by stages what Elijah accomplished at once? That Elisha, after the first attempt at resuscitation, walked up and down in the house (2 Kings 4:35), did not take place certainly, quia illa corporis incubatione nimium laboravit (Peter Martyr), or: ut ambulando excitaret majorem calorem, quem puero communicaret (Cornel. a Lapide, Seb. Smith); it was probably an involuntary result of the great emotion with which he looked and waited for the fulfilment of his prayer. After he had stretched himself once more, with prayer, upon the child, the latter gave signs, by repeated sneezing, of a restored respiration, and then opened his eyes. “Headache was the beginning of his illness, and this is wont to be relieved by sneezing, as Pliny writes (Hist. Nat. xviii. 6), Sternutamenta capitis gravedinem emendant” (Dereser). 2 Kings 4:38. And Elisha came again to Gilgal, &c. Not directly after the act at Shunem, but once, at some other time. The two following narratives are not chronologically connected with the preceding.—In regard to Gilgal, see notes on chap. 2.—ιωְׁ ?αִ ?ινμְ ?τָ ?πָ ?ssιε does not mean they lived before him (Luther, Vulgata), but they sat before him, as pupils before a teacher (cf. the passage from the Talmud in Schφttgen on Acts 22:3). Similarly 2 Kings 6:1. We have not, therefore, to understand a residence together under Elisha’s superintendence, but a coming together and sitting down before him, in order to hear his word (cf. Ezekiel 8:1; Ezekiel 14:1; Ezekiel 33:31; Zechariah 3:8).—ΰֹ ?ψֹ ?ϊ, 2 Kings 4:39, has the general signification which the Chaldee gives: ιְ ?ψεֹ ?χָ ?πִ ?ιο i.e., green herbs, which may be cooked and eaten; What we call “greens.” The particular kind which the seeker found follows with the expression βֶּ ?τֶ ?οωָׂ ?γֶ ?δ, according to the Vulgata, quasi vitis sylvestris, wild vines like grapevines, not wild grapevines. The τַּ ?χֻּ ?ςֹ ?ϊωָׂ ?γֶ ?δ are wild cucumbers or gourds (cucumeres agrestes, or, asinini), also called bursting-cucumbers. They have the form of an egg, and a bitter taste. When they are ripe they burst in pieces if pressed on the stem, whence their name (τχς fidit, rupit). When eaten they cause colic and violent purging. The young man took these wild gourds for ordinary ones, which were very much prized as food (Numbers 11:5). The Sept. and Vulg. translate by colocynth. Keil also prefers this, because this fruit does not burst when touched, and so could be easily carried home in the garment and cut up; but the root τχς is too distinctly in favor of the bursting-gourd, which did not burst in this instance simply because the specimens collected were not entirely ripe (cf. Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 441 sq.). However, the cucumis colocynthi L., or the poisonous colocynth, also has a remarkably bitter taste—a vine which creeps upon the earth, and has light green leaves (cf. I. c., s. 427). 2 Kings 4:40. There is death in the pot, i.e., there is something in the pot which causes death. As well on account of the bitter taste (the Persians call wild gourds the gall of the earth) as on account of the effect, which followed swiftly upon the eating, they considered the food poisonous and fatal. Bitterness and death were cognate ideas among the Hebrews (Ecclesiastes 7:26; Sir 41:1). In 2 Kings 4:41 the εּ before χְ ?ηεּ is not superfluous, but is in the use which denotes the connection of thought (Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 348, a). The meal which Elisha cast into the pot, has just the same significance as the salt which he threw into the unhealthy fountain at Jericho (2 Kings 2:20). “The meal, as the natural and healthy means of nourishment, was the symbol of which he made use in order to give to the sons of the prophets the assurance that the injurious property had been taken from the food by him” (Keil, 1845). 42. And there came a man from Baal-shalisha, i.e., some place in the district of Shalisha (1 Samuel 9:4), no doubt the same one which Jerome and Eusebius call Beth-shalisha, fifteen miles north of Diospolis (Lydda), quite near to Gilgal (2 Kings 2:1), where we have to think of the prophet as being at this time. According to the Law, all first-fruits of grain were to be offered to Jehovah, who relinquished them to his servants, priests and levites (Numbers 18:13; Deuteronomy 18:4). Since now there were no more legitimate priests and levites in the kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 12:31), this man, who was a faithful worshipper of Jehovah, brought his first-fruits to the “Man of God,” the head of the prophets. αַּ ?ψְ ?ξֶ ?μ (Leviticus 23:14), or, in the fuller form, βֶּ ?ψֶ ?ωׁ αַּ ?ψְ ?ξֶ ?μ (Leviticus 2:14), is spica recens tenera, qu� tosta super ignem comedi solent (Mόnster), fresh wheat or barley grits (Keil). According to Hess, a hundred sons of the prophets visited Elisha in a company, and he had nothing more to set before them than what the man had brought him from Shalisha; but this can hardly be correct. 2 Kings 4:43. Give the people that they may eat. As the servant, upon the first command (2 Kings 4:42), expressed some misgivings, Elisha repeated the order with a statement of the reason: For thus saith the Lord, i.e., He has revealed it to me, and He will have it so, therefore, abandon thy misgivings and do as I bid thee. From the words: They shall eat and shall leave thereof, we must not infer a miraculous increase of the food. That the bread was not exhausted under Gehazi’s hands—that each one received as much as he desired, and that, when no one desired any more, then there lay still “abundance of bread upon the table,” to the astonishment of Gehazi (Krummacher); of all that, there is not a syllable in the text. The miraculous part of it consists rather in the fact that, by means of the divine blessing, the hundred men were satisfied with the little which each received at the distribution, and even had some to spare. AND ETHICAL1. That which is narrated of Elisha in the preceding and in the next following chapters, as far as 2 Kings 8:15, is not a consecutive and connected description of his life, but a simple collection of the principal acts, by which he vindicated his position as Man of God and prophet, in different relations, as well private as public, throughout his long career. According to Keil, all these acts “belong to the reign of Jehoram, King of Israel;” but Jehoram reigned only twelve years (2 Kings 3:1), and Elisha did not die until some time during the reign of Joash (2 Kings 13:14), so that he lived after Jehoram’s death at least forty-five years, viz., twenty-eight under Jehu (2 Kings 10:36), and seventeen under Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:1). Moreover, the name of Jehoram does not occur in any of the narratives from chap. 4 to 2 Kings 8:15. The “King of Israel” is mentioned indefinitely, without his name (2 Kings 4:13; 2 Kings 5:5-8; 2 Kings 6:9; 2 Kings 6:11-12; 2 Kings 6:21; 2 Kings 6:26 sq.; 2 Kings 7:6; 2 Kings 7:9 sq.; 2 Kings 8:3). Why Elisha should have performed all his miraculous works under Jehoram, and not have performed any others during the succeeding forty-five years, we cannot see; on the contrary, it is quite incredible. If all the prophetical acts are collected on the same principle mentioned above [namely, to collect loosely those acts which served as the credentials of his prophetical calling], the chronological order has, of course, to be given up, and acts have to be inserted here which occurred at a much later time. It is also acknowledged that the separate acts are narrated in a connection, which, as Keil admits, follows “the relation of their subject-matter to the preceding or following, and not the sequence of time at which they took place.” It is a striking face that the acts which affect private persons, especially the sons of the prophets, come first, and then that those which affect the political fortunes of the people follow. Whether all the incidents which presuppose that Elisha stands in high favor with the king, are to be assigned to the time of Jehu, as Ewald thinks, is a question which cannot be definitely answered in the affirmative; certainly what is narrated 2 Kings 3:17-25, did not remain without influence upon Jehoram, and upon Elisha’s relation to him; and it is generally true that the relation of the kings to the prophets was not so hostile after the death of Ahab. Ewald further adopts the opinion that the collection of incidents is arrayed according to the round and significant number twelve; he reaches this number, however, only by adding to the acts recorded in chap. 4 and following chapters, the two in 2 Kings 2:19-25, although they are separated by the third chapter, while, on the other hand, he leaves out the first of all, 2 Kings 2:14, and the very important one, 2 Kings 3:16 sq., which stands between those which are counted, because these, he thinks, come from a different source. The theory that these narratives “were recorded in a special work, before they were incorporated into our present Book of Kings,” is more probable. The collection into an unbroken line has, no doubt, contributed much to the assertion which has been made by many parties that, in the life of Elisha, “the sacred documents (2 Kings 2-13) present us with a far greater multiplication of miracles, than in the life of his predecessor, Elijah” (Kurz in Herzog’s Real-Encyc. iii. s. 766; cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s. 321). If we consider, however, that the collected prophetical acts belong not to the brief reign of Jehoram alone, but are spread over the entire time of Elisha’s public career under four kings, that is to say, over a period of fifty-five or fifty-seven years, then the appearance of “multiplication of miracles” falls away; all the more as the time of Elijah’s activity was much shorter. The number of miracles recorded as having been performed by Elijah, when accurately estimated, was not much less, and relatively was even greater. (On the “multiplication of the miraculous” see 1 Kings 17 Prelim. Rem. § a.) Finally, we must remember that the acts of Elisha, which are collected in this passage, were accomplished through the ψεּ ?δַ or Spirit of Jehovah, and are prophetical; that they are, therefore, not merely pieces of display of a great thaumaturge, but “signs,” which serve to make known and to glorify the one living God, the God of Israel, and on this account have a more or less ideal significance. They are doctrines, presented in and by acts, i.e., symbolical representations of religious truths. To show this in detail is our task in what follows. 2. The first narrative in this chapter (2 Kings 4:1-7) is meant to show how Elisha helps a widow and her children out of debt and distress. The miraculous increase of the oil, in itself, is not the core and object of the prophet’s act (as the common acceptation is), but only the means to an end; relief from distress is the main point, and thereby the act becomes a prophetical one. This first narrative, now, together with the one immediately following (2 Kings 4:8-37), is ordinarily designated particularly as having “an extraordinary resemblance” to the one, 1 Kings 17:7-16 (Winer, l. c.; Knobel, Der Prophet. ii. s. 96), and as one whose similarity causes it to appear as a merely slightly modified copy of the other (Kurz, l. c.). On a more careful comparison, however, the resemblance is seen to be limited to the one general point, that here, as there, help is given to a widow and her children by the prophet, in their need and distress; all the rest is utterly different. In the former case it is a foreigner, a woman who lives in heathen territory (Luke 4:26), to whom the prophet is directed, and who is to nourish him; in the latter, it is the wife of one of the sons of the prophets who seeks the prophet, and calls upon him for aid. There it was a question of subsistence in time of scarcity, here, of the deliverance of two children from the slavery which threatened them. There the two indispensable means of sustenance, meal and oil, never fail, although they are consumed; here, once for all, the oil “sufficient for anointing” is increased and then sold to pay the debt. The fact that Elijah and Elisha both help and relieve a widow and her children has its ground in the character and calling of the two men as “Men of God,” as they are designated both here and there (2 Kings 4:7, and 1 Kings 17:18). It is a well-known feature of the Old Testament Law, one which is distinctly prominent, that it often and urgently commands to succor the widows and the fatherless and to care for them (Exodus 22:22-24; Deuteronomy 14:29; Deuteronomy 24:17; Deuteronomy 24:19; Deuteronomy 26:12; Deuteronomy 27:19). They are mentioned as representatives of the forsaken, the oppressed, and the necessitous as a class (Isaiah 10:2; Jeremiah 7:6; Jeremiah 22:3; Zechariah 7:10; Malachi 3:5; Bar 6:37). It is especially emphasized and praised in Jehovah that he is the father and judge (i.e., protector of the rights) of the widows and the fatherless (Deuteronomy 10:18; Psalms 68:5; Psalms 146:9; Isaiah 9:17; Sir 35:17 sq.). Neglect and contempt of them are counted among the heaviest offences (Psalms 94:6; Job 22:9; Ezekiel 22:7;) just as on the other hand compassion and care for them is a sign of the true fear of God and of true piety (Job 29:12; Job 31:16; Tob 1:7; James 1:27). So, then, if anything is essential to the idea of a Man of God, this is, that he shall be a counsellor and helper of the widows and orphans, and shall show himself such by his actions. Elijah and Elisha were, in the fullest sense of the word, Men of God, whom Jehovah had armed with His Spirit for extraordinary and marvellous works. It would be remarkable, therefore, if, among the acts of the two genuine prophets of action (cf. above, Prelim. Rem. after 1 Kings 17 § a), there were none by which they showed themselves to be counsellors and helpers of widows and orphans, and none by which they testified that the living God, the God of Israel, before whom they stood (1 Kings 17:1; 2 Kings 3:14), was a father and judge of the widows and fatherless. Without this, an essential point in the prophetical calling of each would be wanting. The prophet, in the case of both widows, takes up and uses naturally and significantly the last and most necessary thing which there was in the house, and thereby directs attention all the more distinctly to Him who out of little can make much, and out of small can make great. “The naturalistic interpreters of miracles suppose that an advantageous retail transaction in oil took place here, or that there was an increase of the oil by the intermixture of other substances, for instance, of potash!” (Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s. 322. Cf. Knobel, Der Prophet. ii. s. 96.) These insipid absurdities do not deserve refutation. 3. The second narrative (2 Kings 4:8-37), which, as has been said already, many modern expositors have considered startlingly like to the one in 1 Kings 17:17-24, likewise appears, upon closer examination, to be utterly different from it. The entire situation is different. In the first place, we must observe that the narrative is divided into two parts, the first of which (2 Kings 4:8-17) forms a complete whole in itself. It narrates the reception which the prophet met with at the house of the Shunammite woman on his journey to Carmel, what he promised her, and how this promise was fulfilled. The narrative might cease there. The second part narrates what occurred afterwards, after a number of years, namely, that the promised son fell victim to an illness and was restored to life by the prophet. The fact of the resuscitation, therefore, has the fact of the promise for its premise, and rests upon it. The Shunammite appeals (2 Kings 4:28) to the promise of the prophet, 2 Kings 4:16, and founds her prayer upon it. He then also does all in his power to preserve the son of promise to his mother, in order that the promise may remain truth and not become deceit. The second fact, therefore, stands in an inseparable connection with the first. In the case of the son of the widow of Zarephath, this is all wanting. He was no son of promise, and there is no question there of anything but a restoration to life. Then, as for the act itself, it takes place there directly through Elijah himself, whereas Elisha here commits it in the first place to his servant. For the entire interlude, 2 Kings 4:29-31, which is narrated so circumstantially, and is so worthy of attention, the parallel is entirely wanting. The similarity, then, which is asserted to exist, is limited to the method of resuscitation referred to in 2 Kings 4:34 (cf. 1 Kings 17:21), and even this is not altogether the same. That Elisha followed a similar method was a consequence, in the first place, of the nature of the case—he breathed life once more into him from whom life had departed (see above, 1 Kings 17 Hist. § 6)—and furthermore, it was almost a matter of course for him that he should imitate the example of his great master in a similar case. It is impossible, therefore, to conclude from this circumstance alone that the entire narrative is simply imitated. Ewald, who adopts the opinion that “the passages about Elijah, 1 Kings 17:19; 2 Kings 2:1-18 were written later than those about Elisha” (in which case the contrary would rather be true, that 1 Kings 17:17 sq. was imitated from this narrative), asserts, on the other hand: “The description, 2 Kings 4:14-17, is clearly borrowed from Genesis 18:9-14;” but in the latter place, also, the connection and the entire situation are utterly different, and that which they have in common amounts only to this, that there, as here, the birth of a son is foretold. This takes place, however, also in Judges 13:3; 1 Samuel 1:17; Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:13; Luke 1:31. What would become of history, especially of Biblical history, if every incident which resembles another more or less should be considered an imitation of it, and therefore unhistorical? If any story is free from the appearance of being manufactured, and has unmistakable signs of historical truth, then this one is such, with its numerous details and peculiar characteristic features. 4. The religious point of the narrative, and there is scarcely a story in the Old Testament which has a more beautiful one, is utterly lost when we seek it in the resuscitation of the boy by the prophet. We have before us here the total of a continuous, complete, and finished story, which is narrated with unusual care and explicitness down to the details, and not simply the record of a single prophetical act, as in the first and third narratives. The course and conclusion of the whole are indeed conditioned upon the miraculous act of the prophet, yet in fact it is rather a history of the Shunammite than an event in the life of Elisha. The object and significance of the story are not, therefore, to be sought in any single feature of the narrative, as if all the rest were merely incidental; it is rather the whole which here comes into account. Three principal points in it come out into especial prominence: A son is given to a pious, God-fearing woman, who had received the prophet at her house, and thereby a blessing and fortune falls to her lot, which she had no longer dared to hope for; soon, however, a great trial intervenes; she is to lose her only son, she holds firmly to the word of promise, however, and sustains the trial; the son is given back to her again by the prophet, and now for the first time she experiences aright that the word of the Lord is true, and that He crowns at last with grace and compassion those who hope and hold fast their faith in Him. This development of the history presents the course by which, as a general rule, God is wont to lead his children. Thus it was with Abraham, the father and prototype of all the faithful in Israel (Genesis 17, 22; Hebrews 11:17 sq.), thus also with Job (Job 1:2-22), and thus also with many other pious men of the old covenant down to Him who was the beginning and end of faith (Hebrews 5:5-9; Hebrews 12:2). This story, therefore, is a practical enunciation of the truth which extends throughout the entire Scriptures, and is a fundamental law of the divine economy of salvation: the Lord “hath set apart him that is godly for himself” (Psalms 4:3). It is He who killeth and maketh alive, that bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up (1 Samuel 2:6). They who please God are preserved through the fire of adversity (Sir 2:5). “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep His covenant and His testimonies” (Psalms 25:10). The glory of God is the end and aim of the entire story, and the work of the prophet serves, here as ever, only to reach this end. 5. The resuscitation of the boy must remain under all circumstances, however we may conceive of it, extraordinary, marvellous, produced by the Spirit (ψεּ ?ηַ) of Jehovah. Starke, following Clericus, says: “The spirit of natural life was not warmed into life by the warmth of the prophet, but by an extraordinary power and energy of God; and the touch of the prophet, in itself, was as little able to bring back warmth and life as the touch of the staff.” No one will adopt now-a-days the marvellous explanations which Knobel (Der Prophet. ii. s. 96) proposes: “The prophet gave a powder to the boy and thus removed the headache; or, the child had perhaps eaten of some poisonous plant, and the prophet relieved him of the poison by an emetic.” The opinion also, which is advanced here, on account of 2 Kings 4:34, still more confidently, even, than on 1 Kings 17:20, that the boy was restored to life by the application of animal magnetism, and that Gehazi was not able to accomplish this on account of the antipathy between him and the mother (Ennemoser and Passavant), must be decidedly contradicted. The prophets of the Old Testament were no mesmerizers, but servants of Jehovan, who “stood before Him,” and whose business it was to bear witness of Him in word and deed. All the great and marvellous works which they performed were a result of earnest prayer, and followed upon their most hearty petitions (see above, 1 Kings 17 Hist. § 6). We are not willing, therefore, to adopt, with Von Gerlach, the opinion that “a genuine life-energy was imparted to the boy from the body of Elisha, which was filled with the Spirit of God,” for the Spirit of God wrought through the prophets; but that it filled their bodies is an idea foreign to the Scriptures. The question whether the boy was utterly dead, and every sign of life had departed from him, is a very different one. He is certainly referred to as dead, 2 Kings 4:20; 2 Kings 4:32. We cannot, however, overlook the fact that, if he had been dead, decomposition must have set in long before Elisha’s arrival at Shunem. If he died at noon (2 Kings 4:20), and his mother set out at once, she must have spent six hours in the journey. If we suppose besides that Gehazi went all the way from Carmel to Shunem on foot, and that he returned from there again and met the prophet and the mother on the way, so that these two did not arrive until still later, then certainly more than twelve hours had passed since the decease of the child. In the Orient, however, decomposition commences much sooner than among us, especially in the warm harvest-season (2 Kings 4:18). With reference to the law, Numbers 19:11, according to which the touching a corpse makes unclean, the Talmudists, as Philippson observes, raised the question: “Did the son of the Shunammite render unclean? and the answer is: ξϊξθξΰεΰιπεξθξΰηι (a corpse makes unclean, but not a living body).” So much at least is clear from this, that they did not consider the boy a real corpse, although they did not deny the miracle. That the act of Elisha cannot in any wise be compared with the restoration to life of the son of the widow of Nain, or of Lazarus, hardly needs to be mentioned. 6. Gehazi’s mission to Shunem, since it was unsuccessful and had no effect whatever upon the development of the story, might have been left unmentioned. That it is narrated, however, in detail, is all the more a proof of the historical truth of the entire story, inasmuch as it cannot serve the glory of the prophet on account of its entire want of success. It is, in fact, not omitted, because it teaches practically that the gift of the Spirit with which God arms His servants, the prophets, for extraordinary deeds, cannot be transferred by these to others, and that it pertains still less to the external symbol of the prophetical calling, so that not every one in whose hand the symbol may be is thereby put in a position to execute such acts. It was not so much the mother of the boy who was to learn this, for she did not desire that Gehazi should be sent, nor Gehazi, for he did not offer to go, but was called upon by the prophet to do so, as it was Elisha himself. The gift of the ψεּ ?ηַ or Spirit is not an habitual, permanent one, but one which is given specially for each occasion, and which the prophet cannot dispose of according to his own good-will and pleasure. As it had not been made known to Elisha by Jehovah that the boy was dead or would die, so the command had not been given to him by God that he should give Gehazi a commission for the deed, and intrust his staff to him. Out of anxiety, lest the prophet’s credit might suffer if the cause of the failure of this mission was sought in him, it was very early thought necessary to have recourse to an allegorical interpretation. The dead boy was said to signify the human race, which had fallen under death on account of sin; the staff with which Gehazi thought that he could awake the dead boy, represented the Law of Moses, which could not save from sin and death; Elisha, finally, who afterwards brought the dead to life, was a type of the Son of God, who, by his incarnation, put himself in connection with our flesh (2 Kings 4:34), and imparted new life to humanity. This interpretation is found from the time of Origen on, in all centuries, and even in the most modern times it has been adopted by Cassel (Elisa, s. 42 sq.). However imaginative and edifying it may be, it has no foundation in the text. 7. The third and fourth narratives (2 Kings 4:38-44) belong together, because both concern the circle of sons of the prophets. Whereas in the first two narratives it is individual faithful servants of Jehovah, who experience, through the prophet, His marvellous, protecting, helping, and saving might, here it is the entire community of sons of the prophets, that is to say, of those who, in the time of apostasy, form the core of the covenant-people, and represent the true Israel. The two narratives are not, therefore, inserted here accidentally and without connection, but they join on very fitly to the two preceding. They have not the object, however, any more than those have, to present Elisha to us as a thaumaturge and to glorify him: on the contrary they are intended to strengthen faith in Him whose instrument and servant the prophet is. They teach and attest practically the truth of the Psalmist’s words (Psalms 33:18-19), which we might even place over them as a title, “Behold the eye of the Lord is upon them that fear Him; upon them that hope in His mercy; to deliver their soul from death (2 Kings 4:38-41), and to keep them alive in famine” (2 Kings 4:42-44). At the same time both narratives afford us an insight into the schools of the prophets. In the same place where the sons of the prophets “sat before him,” i.e., received instruction, there they also ate together, i.e., they led a life of close fellowship and communion (cf. Luke 15:2; 1 Corinthians 5:11 sq.). It follows that this life in common was anything but luxurious, on the contrary that it was a life of sacrifice. How straitened the circumstances were in which they lived we may see from the fact that Elisha had to send one of their number into the field to collect wild herbs before the mid-day meal could be prepared, and also that, later, the little which one man brought had to suffice for a hundred men. From this it follows either that the pupils of the prophets were poor by birth, or that they had decided to live a life of sacrifice and self-denial. Nevertheless, their number was large, and the fact that even bitter want could not separate them from one another and break up the community, is a beautiful sign of the purity of their motives and of their faithful zeal. 8. Both prophetical acts of Elisha in the circle of the pupils of the prophets have been referred to quite ordinary incidents. In the first it has been said that Elisha showed himself a “remarkable student of nature for the time in which he lived” (Knobel, l. c., s. 95), just as in 2 Kings 2:20 sq. and 2 Kings 3:16 sq. If he had been such, however, he would certainly have known that no one can make a pot full of bitter and poisonous herbs uninjurious by simply adding a handful of meal. Hence the Exeget. Handbuch des Alt. Test believes that the prophet may have added something else, does not tell, however, what this something else was, nor whence he got it. Theodoret observes that it was not ἡ τοῦ ἀλεύρουφύσις, but ἡ τοῦ προφητικοῦ πνεύματοςδύναμις, which weakened or destroyed the action of the poison. The meal was here only a natural and appropriate sign of healthful nourishment. The truth underlying the second story is thought to be “that the sons of the prophets were protected by Elisha’s wise precaution during that time of famine” (Knobel, s. 97). In that case Elisha must have sent orders to the man of Beth-Shalisha beforehand, and his precaution, since the man only brought twenty barley-loaves, which were not enough for so many, would have been insufficient and not by any means wise. Neither does the narrative contain “the moral, that the believer can-satisfy his earthly needs even with scanty means” (Kφster, Die Prophet. s. 88), for the prophet does not mean to give an example of the way in which we ought to behave, but he states what Jehovah will do. It is not he who brings about the satisfaction of their hunger, but Jehovah; he only foretells it and announces it. Jehovah ordered it so that a strange man, uncalled and unexpected, should bring to the prophet in a time of famine the first-fruits, which belong to Jehovah according to the Law (Numbers 15:19-20; Deuteronomy 26:2 sq.), and He blessed this gift so that it sufficed to satisfy the entire community of the prophets. Hence it follows that this feeding cannot be regarded as a type of the miraculous feedings in the New Testament, and that we cannot say: “Jesus taught on a grand scale what Elijah taught on a small scale” (Dereser); still less can the New Testament incidents be regarded as imitations and mythical developments of this. The Lord Himself, at the feeding of the five thousand, makes reference, not to this narrative, but to the feeding of the people with manna in the wilderness (Exodus 16:15 sq.), and He gives to His miracle an express object and significance (John 6:32 sq.), such as we cannot at all think of in this case. Besides that, however, the historical connection, the occasion, the persons, all are utterly different, and the asserted similarity is reduced finally simply to this, that through the divine influence a little suffices for many: an altogether ordinary truth which pierces through many other incidents in the history of redemption, which are entirely different from this one. AND 2 Kings 4:1-7. Krummacher: The Story of the poor Widow, (a) Her distress; (b) she seeks refuge in the prophet, and (c) finds it.—Help in Need, (a) The woman who receives assistance. (Widow of a God-fearing man, burdened by debt, and without resources; mother of two children, who are to be taken from her; her faith and trust; her gratitude. Such are always helped.) (b) The prophet who assists her. (As a genuine prophet of God he does not stop his ears to the cry of the poor, like the creditor, Proverbs 21:13. He knows that he who has compassion on the widows and fatherless thereby serves God, James 1:27. Gold and silver he has not, but he employs the gift which he has received, and does not stop with words. Go and do likewise, 1 Peter 4:10; James 2:14-17.)—Wόrt. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ B.—The healing of Naaman, punishment of Gehazi, and recovery of a lost axe2 Kings 5:1 to 2 Kings 6:71 Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honorable [honored], because by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria: he was also a mighty man in valor, but he was a leper. 2And the Syrians had gone out by companies [in marauding bands], and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid; and she waited on Naaman’s wife. 3And she said unto her mistress, Would God my lord were with 4the prophet that is in Samaria! for he would recover him of his leprosy. And one [he, i.e., Naaman] went in, and told his lord, saying, Thus and thus said the maid that is of the land of Israel. 5And the king of Syria said, Go to, go, and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel. And he departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment. [,] 6And he brought the letter [omit the letter] to the king of Israel [the letter], saying [which was to this effect]: Now when this letter is come unto thee, behold, I have therewith sent Naaman my servant to thee, that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy. 7And it came to pass, when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his clothes, and said, Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy? Wherefore, [Nay! only] consider, I pray you, and see how he seeketh a quarrel against me. 8And it was so, when Elisha the man of God had heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, that he sent to the king, saying, Wherefore hast thou rent thy clothes? let him come now to me, and he shall know [learn] that there is a prophet in Israel. 9So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha. 10And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean. 11But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, he will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover 12the leper [heal the leprosy]. Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage. 13And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldst thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, 14Wash, and be clean? Then he went down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean. 15And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing [token of gratitude from—omit of] of thy servant. 16But he said, As the Lord liveth, before whom I stand, I will receive none. And he urged him to take it; but he refused. 17And Naaman said, Shall there not then [If not, then let there], I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules’ burden of earth? [,] for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the Lord. 18In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, [;] that [omit that] when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: [;] when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing. 19And he said unto him, Go in peace. So he departed from him a little way [some distance]. 20But Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said, Behold, my master hath spared Naaman this Syrian, in not receiving at his hands that which he brought: but, as the Lord liveth, I will run after him, and take somewhat of him. 21So Gehazi followed after Naaman. And when Naaman saw him running after him, he lighted down from the chariot to meet him, and said, Is all well? 22And he said, All is well. My master hath sent me, saying, Behold, even [just] now there be come to me from mount Ephraim two young men of the sons of the prophets: give them, I pray thee, a talent of silver, and two changes of garments. 23And Naaman said, Be content, [pleased to—omit,] take two talents. And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of garments, and laid them upon two of his servants; and they bare them before him. 24And when he came to the tower [hill] he took them from their hand, and bestowed them in the house: and he let the men go, and they departed. 25But he went in and stood before his master. And Elisha said unto him, Whence comest thou, Gehazi? 26And he said, Thy servant went no whither. And he said unto him, Went not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? Is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and maid servants? 27The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed forever. And he went from his presence a leper as white as snow. 2 Kings 6:1 And the sons of the prophets said unto Elisha, Behold now, the place where we dwell with thee is too strait for us. 2Let us go, we pray thee, unto Jordan, and take thence every man a beam, and let us make us a place there, where we may dwell. And he answered, Go ye. 3And one said, 4Be content [pleased], I pray thee, and [to] go with thy servants. And he answered, I will go. So he went with them. And when they came to Jordan, they cut down wood. 5But as one was felling a beam, the axe-head fell into the water: and he cried, and said, Alas, master! for it was borrowed. 6And the man of God said, Where fell it? And he cut down a stick, and cast it in thither; and [made] the iron did [to—omit did] swim. 7Therefore said he, Take it up to thee. And he put out his hand, and took it. AND 2 Kings 5:1. Now Naaman captain of the host, &c. The εְ with which the narrative begins, is used as in 1 Kings 1:1, and does not mark the incident as having occurred immediately after the preceding. We cannot decide certainly whether it belongs to the time of Jehoram or to that of the house of Jehu. In any case it refers to a time when the relations between Syria and Israel were not hostile. That Naaman was the man who fatally wounded Ahab is a mere guess of the rabbis, and it is not strengthened at all by the statement of Josephus: παῖςδέτιςβασιλικὸςτοῦ ’Αδάδου, ’́Αμανοςὅνομα. Naaman is called a great man in so far as he occupied a high position in the service of the king. The statement: by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria, i.e., victory, does not compel us to translate βִּ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ψηַ ?ιִ ?μ as Thenius does, by “a man of great physical strength;” the expression marks his military ability. Keil takes it as second predicate: “The man was a general though a leper,” meaning that, although in Israel lepers were excluded from all human society, in Syria a leper could fill even a high civil office. This is certainly unfounded, for lepers were everywhere physically incapable of performing important duties. ξְ ?φֹ ?ψָ ?ς is evidently used by contrast, whether the omission of the εְ connective sharpens the contrast (Thenius) or not. He was a mighty military chief, but, on account of his disease, he could not fulfill his duties. “It is significant that he who had helped to gain the victory over Israel, is represented as a leper, who must seek help in Israel, and who finds it there” (Thenius). [By whom the Lord had given deliverance. In consistency with the standing conception of the Hebrews that Jehovah was the God of all the earth, it is represented as a dispensation of His providence that Naaman had won victories for Syria, cf. 2 Kings 19:25-26.—W. G. S.] ΰַ ?ηֲ ?μֵ ?ι 2 Kings 5:3, as in Psalms 119:5, utinam. The word ΰָ ?ρַ ?σ i.e., collect, take up, receive, designates the reception into the society of men which followed upon deliverance from leprosy (Numbers 12:14). 2 Kings 5:5. And the king of Syria said, &c. We see, from the king’s readiness, how anxious he was for the restoration of Naaman. The treasures which the latter took with him were very valuable; we cannot, however, estimate their value accurately. According to Keil 10 talents of silver are about 25,000 thalers ($18,000), and 6000 shekels of gold (= 2 talents) are about 50,000 thalers ($36,000); according to Thenius the value would be 20,000 thalers and 60,000 thalers ($14,400 and $43,200). On the ten changes of raiment, cf. εἵματαἐξημοιβά (Odyss. 8:249). Winer: “An Oriental is still fond of frequent changes of apparel (Genesis 40:14; 1 Samuel 28:8; 2 Samuel 12:20), especially of grand dresses at marriages and other celebrations (Niebuhr, Reise, i. 182).” The royal letter is abbreviated in 2 Kings 5:6, for it could not begin with “Now when.” Only the main passage is given here. The letter was simply a note of introduction, and we cannot infer from the words: That thou mayest recover him of his leprosy, that the king of Israel was then in a relation of dependence to the Syrian king. The king “probably thought of the prophet, of whom he had heard so great things, as the chief of a sort of magi … or as the Israelitish high-priest, who could probably be induced to undertake, on behalf of a foreigner, those ceremonies and functions of his office from which so great results were to be expected, only by the intercession of the king” (Menken). The king of Israel, however, so far misunderstood the intention of the letter as to suppose that he himself was expected to perform the cure; he thought that this demand was only a pretext, in order to bring about a quarrel with him. He was thereby so frightened and saddened that he rent his clothes (2 Kings 2:12; 1 Kings 21:27). The meaning of the words in 2 Kings 5:7 is: he demands of me something which God alone can do, so that it is clear that he is only seeking a quarrel. To kill and to make alive is the province of that Divinity alone who is elevated far above the world (Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6); leprosy was regarded as the equivalent of death (Numbers 12:12); to deliver from it was to make alive. It is not probable that the king spoke the words: Wherefore, consider, in the solemn audience in which the letter was delivered to him (Thenius): he uttered this suspicion only in the circle of his most intimate attendants. 2 Kings 5:8. And it was so when Elisha the man of God, &c. If the arrival of the celebrated Syrian with his retinue caused a sensation, still more did the fact that the king rent his clothes; the news of it came speedily to the prophet, who was then in Samaria (2 Kings 5:3), and not in Jericho (Krummacher). The king, in his fright, either did not think of Elisha, or he did not believe at all that there was any one who could help in such a case. Elisha therefore sends to him to remind him that there is a prophet in Israel, i.e., that the God who can kill and make alive, the God of Israel, in spite of the apostasy of king and people, yet makes Himself known, in His saving might, through His servants the prophets.—The house of Elisha, before the door of which Naaman stood (2 Kings 5:9), was certainly not a palace, but rather a poor hovel, so that the “great man” did not go in, but waited for the prophet to come out to him, and receive him in a manner befitting his rank. This, however, the prophet did not do, but sent a message to him to instruct him what he should do. The idea that he did this before Naaman reached his house (Kφster) contradicts the words of the text. The reason why Elisha did not come out was not that he was wanting in politeness, or that he was influenced by priestly pride, or that he feared the leprosy, or avoided intercourse with a leper in obedience to the Law (Knobel), but: “He wanted to show to Naaman once for all that this princely magnificence, this splendor of earthly honor and wealth, did not affect him at all, and that there was not the least cause in all this why Naaman should be helped. Furthermore, he wished to prevent the foreigner from thinking that the help came from the prophet, and that he had the healing power in himself, and also to prevent him or any other from ascribing the cure to the application of any external means: for the Syrians knew as well as the Israelites that the Jordan could not heal leprosy.… Naaman was to understand that he was healed by the grace and power of Almighty God, at the prayer of the prophet” (Menken).—Thy flesh shall come again to thee, &c. In leprosy raw flesh appears and running sores are formed, so that the diseased person dies at last of emaciation and dropsy (Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s. 115); the cure, therefore, consists in the restoration of flesh. 2 Kings 5:11. But Naaman was wroth, &c. “Not because he did not meet with becoming honor and attention, but because none of the religious ceremonies which he had expected were performed” (Menken). He himself tells what he had expected: Elisha’s brief answer sounds to him like scorn. The river Abana (2 Kings 5:12), or, as the keri has it, Amana, is the Χρυσοῤῥόας of the Greeks, now called Barada or Barady. It rises in Antilebanon, and flows through Damascus itself in seven arms (Winer, R.-W.-B. ii. s. 194). Pharpar, i.e., the swift, is hardly the little river Fidscheh, which flows into the Barada, but the larger, independent stream Avadsch, south of Damascus (see Thenius and Keil on the passage). Both rivers, as mountain streams, have clean fresh water, and Damascus is celebrated to-day for its pure and healthy water; “whereas the Jordan is ‘a deep, sluggish, discolored stream’ (Robinson, ii. 255, ed. of 1841), so that we understand how Naaman could consider the rivers of his native country better” (Keil). The address: My father (2 Kings 5:13), is at once familiar and respectful, as in 2 Kings 6:21, and 1 Samuel 24:11; the attendants addressed him with mild words and sought to soothe him. Thenius’ conjecture that ΰָ ?αִ ?ι is corrupted from ΰִ ?ν, if, is utterly unnecessary. γָּ ?αָ ?ψ … γִּ ?αֶּ ?ψ is a conditional sentence without ΰִ ?ν and the object precedes for emphasis (Keil).—ΰַ ?σλִּ ?ι as in 2 Samuel 4:11.—εַ ?ιֶּ ?ψֶ ?γ 2 Kings 5:14, means he journeyed down, i.e., from Samaria to the valley of the Jordan. 2 Kings 5:15. And he returned to, &c. That which Elisha had aimed at by his direction in 2 Kings 5:10, namely, not merely the cure of the leprosy, but Naaman’s conversion by means of it to the one true God, the God of Israel, was gained, as Naaman himself acknowledges: Behold, now I know, &c. At the same time he desires to show his gratitude to the man of whom God had made use, and he begs him earnestly to accept a gift (αְּ ?ψָ ?λָ ?δ as in Genesis 33:11; 1 Samuel 25:27; 1 Samuel 30:26). Although Elisha on other occasions accepted gifts for himself, or at least for the body of prophet-disciples (cf. 2 Kings 4:42), yet in this case he steadily refused (2 Kings 5:16), not certainly from haughty self-assertion in his dealings with the great Syrian, but to show him that the prophet of the God of Israel observed a different conduct from the heathen priests, who allowed themselves to be richly rewarded for their deceitful services; especially, however, in order to establish in the mind of the healed man the conviction that the God of Israel alone, out of free grace and pity, had helped him, and that he owed to that God sincere and lasting gratitude. The refusal of Elisha must have made a deep impression not only upon Naaman, but also upon his entire retinue. As Theodoret observes, there lay at the bottom of this refusal the feeling that our Lord demanded of His disciples: “Freely ye have received, freely give.” 2 Kings 5:17. And Naaman said: If not, let there, then, &c. εָ ?μֹ ?ΰ = καὶ εἰ μή, as the Sept. have, not: ut vis (Vulg.), nor: “And oh!” (Ewald). It was not Naaman’s object, in his request that he might take a load of earth with him, to “sacrifice to Jehovah on this outspread earth, as it were in the Holy Land itself” (Thenius), but he wished to build an altar of it. Altars were often made of earth; the altar of burnt-offering even, according to the Mosaic Law, was to be of earth (Exodus 20:24; Symbol. des Mos. Kult. i. s. 491). It is almost universally supposed that Naaman was subject to the “polytheistic superstition,” that each country had its own deity, who could be worshipped properly only in it, or on an altar built of its soil (so the latest commentators: Thenius, Keil, Von Gerlach, &c). But if Naaman had cherished the delusion that every land had its own God, that is to say, that there were other gods by the side of and besides the God of Israel, even though they were not so mighty as He, he would have been in contradiction with his own words in 2 Kings 5:15 : I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel, and he would not yet have grasped the main point, nor recognized that truth which forms the distinction of the Israelitish religion from all others, viz., that Jehovah alone is God, and that there is no other beside Him (Deuteronomy 4:35; Deuteronomy 32:39, &c). Moreover, the prophet could have passed over this delusion least of all without combating it, not to say anything of his replying to it: “Go in peace.” He must, at the very least, have called the Syrian’s attention to this error. Peter Martyr explains the desire to take away a load of earth quite correctly: hoc signo suam contestatur fidem erga deum, Israelis, et eβ terrβ, tanquam symbolo, voluit ejus admoneri. Not because he ascribed to this earth an especial magical power, but because Israel was the land in which the only true God had revealed and vindicated himself to His people, and now finally to him, did he wish to erect an altar of this earth, which should be, in the midst of a heathen country, a sign and monument of the God of Israel, and a memorial of the prophet of that God. This was why he did not take the load of earth, as he might have done, from any indifferent spot, but begged it of the man through whom he had been brought to a knowledge of the one true God. His request was, therefore, the result of a strong and joyful faith rather than of a heathen delusion. if, in a similar manner, according to the narrative of Benjamin of Tudela, cited by Thenius on this passage, the synagogue at Nahardea in Persia was built only of earth and stone which had been brought from Jerusalem, it was so built by the strict monotheistic Jews, certainly not from “polytheistic superstition,” but for the same reasons for which Naaman wished to build his altar of sacrifice out of Israelitish earth. [See bracketed note at the end of Histor. § 1. 2 Kings 5:18. In this thing the Lord pardon, &c. Rimmon is doubtless a designation of the highest Syrian divinity, abbreviated from Hadad-Rimmon (Movers). See above, Exeg. on 1 Kings 15:18. It is of little importance for us whether the name is derived from ψָ ?ξַ ?ν (ψεּ ?ν) i.e., to be high, so that it is equivalent to ςֶ ?μְ ?ιεֹ ?ο (Psalms 9:2; Psalms 21:7), or from ψִ ?ξּ ?εֹ ?ο pomegranate (the well-known symbol of the reproductive power).—The expression: And he leaneth on my hand, designates a service, which appertained to a high official (adjutant) of the king, on occasions when the latter bowed down or arose, or performed any similar ceremony. This service was also executed at the court of the Israelitish kings (2 Kings 7:2; 2 Kings 7:17). The urgency of the request is marked by the repetition of the words: when I bow down. The meaning of the request is: when I, in the execution of any duty, accompany my king to the temple of Rimmon, and bow down when he bows down, then may that be pardoned me, and may I not be regarded as worshipping that divinity. I will not serve, from this time on, any God but Jehovah. Theodoret: εἰσιὼνἐγὼ τὸνἀληθινὸνπροσκυνήσωθεόν· συγγνώμηςτυχεῖνἱκετεύων, ὅτιδὴ διὰ τὴνβασιλικὴνἀνάγκηνεἰςελθεῖνπρὸςτὸνψευδώνυμονθεὸνἀναγκάζομαι. The word δִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ηֲ ?εָ ?δ, which is used of prostration before men as well as before God, and so in itself does not signify a purely religious act, cannot here be understood of an act of worship, for, if it could, Naaman would say in 2 Kings 5:18 the very opposite of what he had promised in 2 Kings 5:17, and Elisha could not have responded to the request that he might worship Rimmon besides Jehovah with the blessing: “Go in peace.” Some have very unjustly found, in the request that he might take away a load of earth, and also in the prayer that he might be forgiven for prostration in the house of Rimmon, signs that his faith was still wavering, undecided, and weak. It rather shows that he had a tender conscience, which desired to avoid an appearance of denying Jehovah, and which was forced to speak out its scruples and have them quieted. Such scruples would not have occurred to one who was wavering between service of God and service of the gods.—According to Keil, Elisha meant by the words: Go in peace, 2 Kings 5:19, to wish for the Syrian, on his departure, the blessing of God, “without approving or disapproving the religious conviction which he had expressed:” or, according to Von Gerlach, “without entering into the special questions involved.” But the prophet could not return a reply to a request which proceeded from conscientious scruples, such as the new convert here presented, nor give a reply which was at once yes and no, or neither the one nor the other. Naaman was to proceed on his journey “in peace,” not in doubt or restless uncertainty. If his request had been incompatible with a knowledge of the true God, the prophet would have been forced to show him that it was so; he could not have dismissed him with an ordinary, indifferent “formula of farewell.” That he omitted the correction and dismissed him in peace, shows beyond question that he acceded to the request. 2 Kings 5:19 sq. So he departed from him a little way, &c. Literally: a length of country, as in Genesis 35:16, without definite measure. It cannot have been very far (a parasang, according to the Syrian Version, or three and a half English miles, according to Michaelis). If it had been so far Gehazi could not have overtaken the horses (2 Kings 5:9).—This Syrian, 2 Kings 5:20, Vulg.: Syro isti, i.e., this foreigner, from whom he would have had a double right to take some reward. The oath: As the Lord liveth, stands in contrast with that of Elisha, 2 Kings 5:16. Blinded by his avarice, Gehazi considers it right before God to take pay, just as Elisha, in his fidelity, considers it right before God to accept nothing.—Descent from a vehicle (2 Kings 5:21) is, in the East, a sign of respect from the inferior to the superior (Winer. R.-W.-B. i. s. 501); Naaman honored the prophet in his servant. “From Gehazi’s hasty pursuit he infers that something unfortunate for the prophet has occurred” (Thenius), and asks, therefore, Rectene sunt omnia? (Vulg.) In reply to Gehazi’s assertion (2 Kings 5:22), he urges him to accept two talents, one for each prophet-disciple, and he causes the money to be borne before Gehazi in two sacks, as a mark of his eager willingness. Whether ηֲ ?ψִ ?θִ ?ιν means open-worked, basket-like sacks, with handles (Thenius), or not, can hardly be determined from the word.—δֲ ?ςֹ ?τֶ ?μ (2 Kings 5:24) is not a proper name (Luther), but the hill which stood before the house of Elisha, not before the house of anybody else, an acquaintance, for instance (Clericus). 2 Kings 5:25-26. And Elisha said unto him, &c. The words of Elisha: μֹ ?ΰΞμִ ?αִּ ?ιδָ ?μַ ?κְ, stand in evident contrast with the words of Gehazi: μֹ ?ΰΞδָ ?μַ ?κְ ςַ ?αְ ?γְּ ?κָ, and mean: Thou sayest that thou didst not go anywhither; neither did I go away any-whither, i.e., I was not absent when Naaman descended from the chariot to come to meet thee. Instead of “I,” the prophet says μִ ?αִּ ?ι, my heart (1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39; Jeremiah 17:10, &c.), because he was not present there, as Gehazi was, bodily and visibly, but in spirit, invisibly (1 Corinthians 5:3). Vulgata: Nonne cor meum in pr�senti erat quando, &c. Thenius: “Did I not go hence in spirit, and was I not present there?” It is not necessary to take it as a question, however, as is usually done. The question begins with δַ ?ςֵ ?ϊ. Ewald takes “my heart” to mean “my favorite, so that Elisha here rather refers with a severe pleasantry to his most intimate follower, who could so far transgress against his master, although he was his favorite pupil.” It is incredible that the prophet could have introduced the hard punishment of Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27) with a jesting, scornful question. [This rendering of Ewald: “Had not my dear pupil gone forth when some one (i.e., Naaman) turned back from his chariot to meet thee,” makes better sense than any other. It is not so much a jest as it is a sarcastic stripping bare of the falsehood, and it is not at all inconsistent with the revulsion of indignation and severity which prompts the condemnation which follows. Against this explanation, however, is the fact that this meaning for μִ ?αִּ ?ι cannot be proved. Ewald refers to the Song of Solomon to justify the explanation, but without citing particular passages, and the context is so different in the two cases that the usage could not be established by its occurrence in that book.—W. G. S.] The explanation of Bφttcher is equally inadmissible: “I, according to my convictions, could not have prevailed upon my heart … to go.” After 2 Kings 5:16 Elisha no longer needed to assert this. It was already clear. Maurer’s explanation: Non abierat, i.e., evanuerat (Psalms 78:39), animus meus, h. e., vis divinandi me nequaquam defecerat, falls, because δָ ?μַ ?κְ would have to be taken in a very different sense from what it has in 2 Kings 5:25, and because the clear reference to Gehazi’s words would then be lost. [The explanation of Thenius, practically that of the E. V., is the best. The strain put upon the words to make them mean, “I did not go away from the interview between thee and Naaman,” i.e., “I was present at it,” is apparent.—W. G. S.]—Is it a time, &c., i.e., “In any other case better than in this, mightest thou have yielded to thy desire for gold and goods” (Thenius). Gehazi had not received olive-trees, &c., but he meant to buy them with the money. [The form in which the Vulgate translates the verse is not literally faithful to the original, but it brings out with great distinctness the antithesis between the objects Gehazi had in view, and which, indeed, he had gained, and the other results which must follow: “Thou hast indeed received money wherewith thou mayest buy garments, and olive-yards, and vineyards, and sheep and oxen, and men-servants, and maid-servants; but, also, the leprosy of Naaman shall cleave unto thee and unto thy seed forever.”] A leper as white as snow (2 Kings 5:27), cf. the same expression, Exodus 4:6; Numbers 12:10, where a similar sudden attack of this disease takes place. According to Michaelis this takes place often under great terror or great affliction. The skin around the diseased spots is chalk-white (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 114). Upon the words: Unto thee and unto thy seed (posterity) forever, Menken says: “It is the full, strong expression of excited, deep, yet holy and just feeling, which dare not and will not lay its words upon delicate scales, and which, to express the fulness of its abhorrence or its admiration, of its curse or its blessing, seizes upon a formula of the vulgar dialects of the country, even though it may not apply, in syllable and letter, to the case in hand.” 2 Kings 6:1. And the sons of the prophets said, &c. This story is to be connected with the two in 2 Kings 4:38-44, and is a supplement to them. Thenius supposes that it stands here “in order to show that what is said here in 2 Kings 6:1 did not take place until long after.” The connection into which Cassel brings it with chap. 5. is very forced, viz.: that the needy community of the prophets forms a contrast to the rich and mighty military commander; or, that, in spite of Gehazi’s fall, the number of prophet-disciples had increased so much, that a new house was necessary for them. Theodoret’s connection is at least more natural: He (Gehazi) sought riches and became a leper; the company of prophet-disciples, on the contrary, loved the greatest poverty. It is hardly possible that the place which had become too small was in Gilgal (2 Kings 2:1; 2 Kings 4:38), for this lay at a considerable distance from the valley of the Jordan; the same is true of Bethel. It is more likely to have been Jericho. The words: Where we dwell with thee (see on 2 Kings 4:38), show that the need was of a larger place of assembly, since the number of prophet-disciples had increased, and amounted at this time to certainly over a hundred (2 Kings 4:43). There is no reason to find a reference to dwellings which were to be built for all, as has been done in the interest of monasteries. They wished to go to the Jordan (2 Kings 6:2), because “its bank is thickly grown with bushes and trees” (willows, poplars, and tamarisks. Hitzig on Jeremiah 12:5), so that the building material was conveniently at hand. By the following words they mean: if each one cuts a beam, the work will soon be accomplished. They beg the prophet to go with them, not that he may direct the work—he was no architect—but because they wish to have him in their midst, and promise themselves, from his presence, blessing and success for their labor. 2 Kings 6:5. But as one was felling a beam, &c. It has been inferred from δָ ?ΰֶ ?ηָ ?γ, which also occurs in the 3d verse, that it was the same one who is there referred to, but without reason. According to Hitzig and Thenius the ΰֶ ?ϊ before δַ ?αַּ ?ψְ ?ζֶ ?μ introduces the new, definite subject. According to Keil, it serves to subordinate the noun to the sentence: “As for the iron, it fell into the water.” In the lament lies also a request for help, which is strengthened by εְ ?δεּ ?ΰωָׁ ?ΰεּ ?μ. The person in question had “begged” for the axe, probably because he was too poor to buy one; hence the loss grieved him more than it would have done if it had come into his possession by gift. Luther’s translation [and that of the E. V.], “borrowed,” is correct in sense, though not exactly the corresponding word. The Vulgate has: et hoc ipsum mutuo acceperam.—The words εַ ?ιָּ ?φֶ ?σδַ ?αַּ ?ψְ ?ζֶ ?μ are translated by Luther, following the Sept.: “The iron swam,” and hence the story, 2 Kings 6:1-6, is commonly entitled “The swimming iron.” Thenius and Keil translate: “And he caused the iron to swim.” But φεּ ?σ does not mean “swim,” like ωָׂ ?ηָ ?δ (Isaiah 25:11), but: overflow (Lamentations 3:54): “Waters flowed over mine head;” in the hifil: to cause to overflow; Deuteronomy 11:4 : “He made the water of the Red Sea to overflow them.” The word does not occur out of these two places, in which it is impossible to translate it by swim and cause to swim. Cf. also φεּ ?σ, honeycomb (Psalms 19:10), from the idea of overflowing. Just as Jehovah brought the water over the horses and chariots, so that they were under it, Elisha here brought the axe over the water, so that it was no longer concealed by it. The Sept. translate: καὶ ἐπεπόλασετὸ σίδηρον, i.e., and the iron arose—appeared upon the surface. Hesychius explains ἐπιπολάσαντες by ἐπάνωτοῦ ὕδατοςπεριφερόμενοι. If ἐπιπολάζειν meant swim, it could not, at the same time, have the meaning: to be haughty, to exalt one’s self impudently (Plut. Symp. ii. 1, 12). Hence Theodoret, on the passage, says correctly: ὁ προφήτηςἀνήγαγετὸ σιδήριον. ξύλονγὰρἐμβαλών, παρεσκεύασενἐπιπολάσαιτὸ σιδήριον. [The translation “swim,” meaning simply “float,” is perfectly allowable for either the Hebrew word or the Greek one, by which the Sept. render it.—W. G. S.] The miracle was not, therefore, “that the wood which was thrown in sank, while the iron swam upon the surface” (Philippson), but, that the prophet, by throwing in the wood, caused the iron to come to the surface, where the young man could get it. Following many of the rabbis, Vatablus and others, including Thenius, have adopted the opinion that Elisha pierced the hole in the axe with the stick, and so raised it out of the water. Of this the text says nothing, it only states that he did bring up the axe, not, however, how he did it; wherefore, it can only be regarded as a guess when Von Gerlach says: “He thrust the stick into the water, so that it passed beneath the iron and raised it to the surface.” AND ETHICAL1. The first of the two preceding narratives, which fills the whole 5th chapter, is one of the most important in the life and prophetical labor of Elisha, and this is marked, in fact, by the fulness of detail with which it is narrated. Menken, in his excellent homilies upon this chapter (see his Schriften v. s. 77–117), says of it with justice: “This is a charming testimony to the living God!—a worthy part of the history of those revelations and manifestations of the living God, which, in their connection and continuation through many centuries, and in their tendency toward one goal and object, were designed to plant upon earth the knowledge and the worship of the true God! But it offers besides to our consideration a rich store of reflections, in which neither heart nor understanding can refuse a willing participation.” There is hardly a single Old Testament story in which the character of the Old Testament economy of salvation is mirrored in any such way; it is a truly prophetical story, that is, an historical prophecy. On the one side it shows the wonderful providence and mode of salvation of God, His saving power and grace, as well as His holy severity, and His retributive justice; on the other, closely interwoven with this, it shows human thought and desire, suffering and action, as well in good as in evil: it is the scheme of salvation epitomized. However, when Krummacher says: “We should rather expect to find it upon a page of the Gospel than seek it in an Old Testament book,” and affirms: “The baptism of the New Testament meets us here already in a type which is full of life,” he confounds the economies of the two Testaments. In spite of all its typical force, the story is specifically an Old Testament one. The main point, the proof of the whole, and therefore the thing which is not to be lost sight of, is, that a foreigner, a heathen, who, moreover, belongs to the people by which Israel at that time was most threatened; a mighty commander, by whose instrumentality Jehovah had given victory to the Syrians, finds help from the “prophet in Israel” (2 Kings 6:8), and comes to a knowledge of the one true God, the God of Israel. This is the point, too, which our Lord lays stress upon (Luke 4:25-27) when He, in order to shame and warn His countrymen who were scoffing at Him, refers to the widow of Sarepta, the foreigner, to whom Elijah was sent, and then to Naaman the Syrian, whom Elisha healed. The conjunction of the two is by no means accidental: both these great prophets of action testified, during the time of apostasy in Israel, each of them by an act of assistance towards a foreigner, that Jehovah, with His might and grace, was not confined to Israel; that He takes pity upon the heathen also, and leads them to knowledge, that His great name may be praised among all nations. What the later prophets preached by word, Elijah and Elisha prophesied by acts. As “widows and orphans” were succored by both (see above on 2 Kings 4:1 sq.), so foreigners are helped by both. The story of Naaman, therefore, occupies an essential place in the history of the prophetical work of Elisha; without it one of the chief points of the prophetical calling would be wanting in this work. [We must endeavor to analyze this story more closely, and to gain a more definite conception of the course of the incidents. Naaman undoubtedly had the religious ideas which were universal throughout ancient heathendom. He regarded the gods of Syria, which he had been educated to worship, as real gods. None of them, or of their priests or prophets, had or could cure him of leprosy. He heard by chance the fame of Elisha, as one who wrought wonders in the name of the God of Israel. No heathen would maintain that his national divinities were the only true gods. Sennacherib declared that he was conquering Judah by the command of Jehovah, whom he recognized as the god of that country. The heathen colonists whom the king of Syria brought to populate Samaria, attributed the ravages of the wild beasts to the fact that the worship of the god of the country was not provided for. It was the notion of the heathen that each country had its god, so that Syrians worshipped Syrian gods, and Hebrews the Hebrew god. To the heathen this seemed perfectly natural and correct. On the other hand, the Hebrews declared that Jehovah was the one only true God of all the earth, and that the gods of the heathen were nullities (vanity, E. V.) Naaman did not violate the principles of his religious education when he went to Elisha; Ahaziah, when he sent to Ekron (chap. 1), did. Naaman came with a letter from the king of Syria to the king of Israel, and he came with gifts, and in pomp—all according to heathen ideas of the means of inducing the thaumaturge to exercise his power. He was to be armed with the influence of authority and rank; he was to appear as a great man, for whom it was well worth while for the wonder-worker to do whatever he possibly could, and he brought the material means which his experience among wizards, diviners, soothsayers, and priests, had taught him to regard as indispensable. The king of Israel was terrified at the demand; but the prophet intervened. We are surprised at this feature. If Naaman’s errand was really to Elisha, the literal words of the letter would not have been a demand that the king should heal him (2 Kings 5:6), but that he should command his subject, the prophet, to exercise his powers on the Syrian’s behalf. Thus the king would have simply referred Naaman to Elisha for the latter to do what he could. The story is evidently so much abbreviated at this point that its smoothness is impaired. Naaman comes in all his pomp to the door of Elisha. He receives the prophet’s command, and his words in 2 Kings 5:11-12 bear witness again to wide and deep heathen conceptions. In 2 Kings 5:11 he describes graphically the mode of performance of the heathen thaumaturge. “I thought, he will stand” (take up a ceremonious and solemn attitude) “and call upon the name of his God” (repeat a formula of incantation), “and strike his hand upon the place” (with a solemn gesture) “and remove the leprosy.” Had he come all that journey to be told to bathe? Could water cure leprosy? If it could, was there not the pure water of Abana and Pharpar, better far than the sluggish and muddy water of Jordan? His pomp and state were thrown away: the man of God did not even come to look at them. His high credentials were wasted; the means of cure prescribed for him might have been prescribed for the poorest outcast in Israel. The deep and permanent truth of this feature, and also of the prophet’s refusal to accept money, is apparent. The difference between the Jehovah-religion and the heathen religions is sharply portrayed by the contrast in each point, between Naaman’s expectations on the one hand, and the prophet’s words and actions on the other. The Syrian’s servants suggested to him the sensible reflection that he ought not to despise the prophet’s command. He went, bathed, and was cleansed. He then returned to reward the prophet, but found that the prophet did not give his help as a thing to be paid for. The Syrian was not to think that the prophet had used a power which was his own, and which might be paid for, whereby the obligation would be discharged. The service came from God; it was a free act of grace; a special blessing upon this one, and he a foreigner, while many Israelitish lepers remained uncleansed (Luke 4:27). The prophet and his God were not at the service of any one who came and could pay a certain price; they wrought only where and when there was good reason, and, when they did so, the recipient of grace lay under an obligation which he never could discharge. In regard to Naaman’s words: “Now I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel,” a careful scrutiny shows that the proposition is not strictly accurate, for the God of Israel is and was not only in Israel, but in all the earth. The true proposition would be: The God of Israel is the only true God, and He reigns over all the earth. In the very form of his confession Naaman shows that his mind was still under the bias of the heathen idea of local deities, so that he says that there is no God anywhere else in the world but in Israel. No other had been able to heal him; but Jehovah had done so by apparently very insignificant means, hence he esteemed Jehovah true, and esteemed the others very lightly or not at all. It should be noticed also that the conception which he seems to have reached was that which was held by very many of the Jews, viz.: that Israel alone had any God, and that the rest of the world was godless; their own gods were nullities, and Jehovah did not care for them, so that they had no God at all. He determined to devote himself to the worship of Jehovah for the rest of his days. He therefore very naturally, in accordance with the same idea of local or territorial divinities, asked for earth from Palestine to build an altar for the worship of Jehovah. He also made one further request. His duty at his master’s court (although it is difficult to understand how a leper could have had that office) was to attend his master, and support him when he went to worship in the temple of the Syrian God, Rimmon. The idea that Naaman was “converted” to the worship of Jehovah in such a sense that he went over to the Hebrew idea of the other gods, is without foundation. It is a modern idea, which has no place in this connection. Naaman did not feel bound at all to keep away from the temple of Rimmon, as an early Christian would have kept away from an idol-temple. His last request to the prophet is, that, when he goes into this temple in the course of his official duty, it shall not be regarded as a violation of his vow to pay all his worship, for the future, to Jehovah, to the neglect of all other gods. To this the prophet answers: “Go in peace,” i.e., your sincere performance of your vow shall be recognized, and. this conduct shall not be interpreted as a violation of it.—W. G. S.] 2. The healing of Naaman did not take place at a mere word, but was like all miraculous deeds of the prophet, attached to some corresponding external means, but to such an one that to it, in itself, no healing power could be ascribed. This power must first be conferred upon it by the prophet, so that the cure must necessarily be recognized as an act of God, whose instrument and minister the prophet was. The external means, a sevenfold bath in Jordan, was a very significant one. Evidently the prophet had in mind what the Law prescribed for the purification of a leper. Such an one was to “bathe himself in water” (Leviticus 14:8-9), and throughout the entire ceremony of purification, “sevenfoldness” is the rule (Leviticus 14:7; Leviticus 14:16; Leviticus 14:27; cf. Leviticus 14:51; Symbol. des Mos. Kult., i. s. 196, and ii. s. 508, 518). The conduct of Elisha was, therefore, in general analogous to the ordinance in the Law, and, in so far, it referred back to the God of Israel, who had given the Law. Naaman had to bathe in the Jordan because that is the chief river of the promised land, which flows through the long and narrow country, so that it is called simply the land of the Jordan (Psalms 42:6). As Canaan was the land of Israel, so the Jordan was the river of Israel. Moreover, it had great importance for the history of Israel. From the “passage of the chosen people” through this water, which is compared directly with the passage through the Red Sea (Psalms 114:3; Psalms 114:5), “dated the existence of the theocracy in Palestine” (Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s. 620). The Jordan was witness, and, in a certain degree, pledge and warrant of the might and grace of God, which were revealed in Israel. It was the water, in and at which Jehovah had manifested himself as the almighty, helping, and saving God of Israel. The fact of being healed and purified by bathing in this water, was designed to draw the mind of the heathen to the truth, that it is the God of Israel who alone can help and save, and that He it was who had helped him; that he therefore owed gratitude to this God alone, and not to the prophet who was only His servant. We have, then, in this case another proof that the miracles of the prophet were symbolic acts, and it is remarkable that the immediate significance of Elisha’s transaction with Naaman, although it lies upon its face and is so easily to be recognized, has been hitherto almost entirely overlooked. The naturalistic method of explanation is at a loss to account for this miracle. According to Knobel (Prophet. ii. p. 92–97): “Elisha had the reputation of a good physician among the Syrians as well as among the Israelites… The bath, taken in obedience to the command of a man of God, was blessed with an extraordinary efficacy. That this, however, was not the entire curative process employed by Elisha is certain (?), though it is not possible to find out what else he did to Naaman.” To relegate the entire story to the domain of myth or legend, on account of the miracle, is the least admissible course to pursue. This story bears in itself the impress of historical genuineness, if ever one did, by virtue of its simplicity, its moderate statements, its numerous characteristic details, and its purely objective representation. To invent such a story is impossible; and it can occur to no one who understands the matter that Naaman is a mythical person. The remark of Kφster (Die Prophet. s. 89): “The whole story is meant to show that miracles were always intended to extend the worship of Jehovah,” is unsatisfactory, because this was evidently not the case in many miracles, and especially in all the rest which are recorded of Elisha (cf. chap. 4). [The most important and most instructive feature of the story seems to be overlooked by our author. It was not the water either of Jordan or of Abana which could heal, it was the obedience of this haughty general to a mandate which seemed to him frivolous and absurd. In the gospels faith is the first requisite in similar cases of healing, and so it was here also—faith and obedience. Naaman came with his mind all made up as to how he was to be healed, and he turned away in anger and disgust from the course which the prophet prescribed. Yet, when he turned back, even with a lame and half-doubting faith, and a half-unwilling obedience, he was healed. This is the permanent truth which is involved in the story. Naaman was a type of the rationalist whose philosophy provides him with a priori dogmas by which he measures everything which is proposed to his faith. He turns away in contempt where faith would heal him. That is the truth which the story serves to enforce.—W. G. S.] 3. In the acknowledgment with which Naaman returns to the prophet after being healed, the story reaches its climax: all the ways in which God led this man tended to this end. With the words: “Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel,” he renounces the fundamental error of heathenism on the one hand, viz.: that every nation had its own god, and on the other hand he acknowledges that there is only one God on earth, and that He reveals himself in Israel. He does not, therefore, exchange one national god for another, but declares that Jehovah is the first and the last, and that there is no God beside Him (Isaiah 44:6), that the whole earth belongs to Him (Exodus 19:5), and that this God has chosen the people of Israel for the salvation of all nations, and revealed himself to them. This is the kernel of Naaman’s confession, that he does not merely turn from Polytheism to Monotheism, but recognizes the God who has revealed himself to Israel as the one living God. Therefore, also, this land, which God promised and gave to his people, is for him a holy land (cf. Daniel 11:16; Daniel 11:41; Psalms 37:9; Psalms 37:29; Proverbs 2:21 sq.). Therefore he wishes to take earth from this country that he may sacrifice thereon to its God. Such a confession from the mouth of a heathen would be incomprehensible, especially from one who had the disposition which Naaman showed before he was healed (2 Kings 5:11-12), if something extraordinary and miraculous had not taken place. For unfaithful, wavering Israel, which had had a far wider experience of the might and glory of its God than Naaman, this confession was a source of shame, of warning, and of reproof. 4. Naaman’s request (2 Kings 5:18) and Elisha’s reply (2 Kings 5:19) have been made the text of extended theological treatises (cf. Buddeus’ Hist. Eccles. ii. p. 360 sq.). For instance: it has been inferred that, under certain circumstances, it is permitted to participate in the ceremonies of a religion one recognizes as erroneous. Among Roman Catholics the passage has been used to justify the conduct of missionaries who permitted the newly-converted heathen to continue to observe pagan ceremonies; among Protestants, as Starke says, “Some have drawn the conclusion that an attendant of a prince or king might accompany him to Mass, and do him service there, if he was in the service of the prince before the latter was converted to a false worship of God. Such a case was that of John of Saxony, whom the Emperor Charles V. asked to carry the sword in procession as Grand Marshal of the empire, when the emperor went in solemn state to Mass.” The passage does not, however, give a general rule for all times and all places, because the case of Naaman belongs entirely to the Old Testament, and could not now occur. If Naaman ought not to have continued to exercise his office about the person of his king any longer, then he must have given up, not only his influential position, but also his fatherland and his nationality, and must have become an Israelite, and that too at a time when there was so much apostasy in Israel itself. The entire object of his being healed, viz., that he, in the midst of a heathen nation, which was hostile to Israel, might be a witness and an actual confessor of the God of Israel, and might carry His name into another country, would have been frustrated. Elisha, who had this object before all else in view, does not, therefore, raise any objections to his request: he invokes upon him “peace” at his departure; and, “since he perceives that Naaman’s purposes are pure, he leaves him to the direction of God, as the one who will guide his conscience” (Jo. Lange). Cassel (Elisha, s. 89) not improperly draws attention here to the difference between the conduct of Naaman and that of Themistocles in a similar case. The latter found it necessary to appear before the Persian king, and there prostrate himself before him, according to the Persian custom. As he, however, considered this unworthy of a Greek, he had recourse to the stratagem of allowing his ring to fall, and then, as he picked it up, he bowed before the throne, and so thought that he had given satisfaction both to his conscience and to the king. “Naaman did not wish to act thus. He was not willing to deceive or act the hypocrite, for he knew that his God could see through the stratagem, and would not permit himself to be deceived, although men might think that they had concealed their hearts.” [There is no reason whatever to suppose that Naaman knew all that; and the heinousness of this stratagem of Themistocles was very different from that of an hypocritical act of worship. Why should we imagine that Naaman, after he was cleansed of leprosy, had the clear conceptions, the pure piety, and the delicate conscience of a modern Christian? Furthermore, it seems that, if the words of the author above are pressed, he will be made to say that any one may engage in hypocritical acts of worship, if he can, by so doing, remain in a position where he can make proselytes! The object of the miracle was not to make a proselyte of Naaman (see above, bracketed note at the end of § 1). The Israelites, at this period, made no effort whatever to gain proselytes. The opportunity offered to glorify the God of Israel before a heathen of rank, and it was done. He naturally turned, as a consequence, to the worship of Jehovah, as superior to all other gods. In the addition to § 1, it is stated what Naaman meant by this request, and what the significance of the prophet’s answer was.—W. G. S.] 5. Gehazi’s transgression and its punishment are to be estimated principally from the historical-theocratical, and not alone from the moral standpoint. His act was not a product of mere vulgar avarice, which shrinks back from no falsehood. By it he made his master, all of whose intercourse with him ought to have exercised a purifying influence upon him, a liar, and his oath (2 Kings 5:16) an empty phrase. He did not leave Naaman with the undimmed conviction that all the grace he had experienced had come to him gratis, and that “there was a prophet in Israel.” He did not fear to stain the work which God had done upon a heathen for the glory of His name, and thereby he denied the Holy One, whose might he had just seen manifested upon Naaman. The words which Peter used of Ananias were true of him: “Thou hast not lied unto men but unto God” (Acts 5:4). His act was a betrayal of the prophet, of Naaman, and of Jehovah. “A thousand deceits and dishonesties might have been committed, by all of which not one of the dear and holy interests would have been injured, which in this case were in danger, and which, by this act, were criminally and faithlessly betrayed” (Menken). Hence it incurred so severe a punishment, which was not arbitrarily or indifferently chosen, but which proceeded out of the transgression, and corresponded to it. The leprosy of Naaman (2 Kings 5:27) became the leprosy of Gehazi; as Naaman was a living monument of the saving might and grace of Jehovah, so Gehazi was a monument of the retributive justice of the Holy One in Israel; a living warning and threat for the entire people. By his conversion Naaman was taken up into God’s community of redemption in Israel; by his unfaithfulness and denial of this God, Gehazi brings down upon himself the punishment which excludes him from the society of the prophet-disciples, and of the entire covenant people. Finally, as Naaman’s cure and conversion was a physical prophecy that God will have pity upon the heathen also, and will receive them into His covenant of grace, so Gehazi’s leprosy prophesied the rejection of the people of Israel who should abandon the covenant of grace, and persevere in apostasy (Matthew 8:11-12; Matthew 21:43). 6. The second narrative (2 Kings 6:1-7) relates the last of the acts of Elisha which concern individuals. It is distinguished from the two mentioned above, which likewise took place in the circle of the prophet-disciples (2 Kings 4:38-44), by the circumstance that here help is given in need to one person, not, as there, to the entire society. The number of the prophet-disciples had become so great, that the construction of another building had become necessary. Here now was to be shown how each separate individual of the company might be consoled by the help of Jehovah even in the slightest need. The loss of the axe, even though it had been “begged for,” was very slight in itself; but for a poor man, who did not even possess the necessary implements for cutting wood, a greater one than it would be for a rich man, if all his treasures should fall into the water. As before God there is no respect of persons, prince or beggar being all one, so there is also before Him no independent value in things; what is small and insignificant for one person, being great and important for another. The lilies of the field, which bloom to-day and to-morrow are cast into the oven, are as glorious before God as Solomon in all his glory (Matthew 6:28-30). His might and goodness are revealed in the smallest detail as well as in the greatest combination. He helps in what are apparently the smallest interests of the individual, as well as in the greatest affairs of entire nations, and He rules with His grace especially over those who keep His covenant, and turn to him in all the necessities of life. That is the great truth which this little story proclaims, and just for the sake of this truth, it was “thought worthy to be inserted in the history of the theocracy” (Hess). The restoration of the axe, whereby aid was given to the prophet-disciple in his need, strengthened all the others in the faith that the God in whose honor they were erecting the building was with them, and would accompany their work with His blessing; they worked now only the more zealously and gladly. 7. The swimming iron, which is the title ordinarily given to this narrative, is an entirely incorrect designation of it. It has the literal meaning of the text against it, and it misleads to the opinion that the only point of the story is, that Elisha also made iron swim upon water like wood. What significance, however, would such a miracle have under these circumstances? It would not have any proper force, either for the prophet-disciple himself, or for the construction of the building, and would be nothing more than a feat of the divine omnipotence, without either moral or religious foundation, and at most only a thing to excite astonishment. This object has indeed been suggested: “the prophet-disciples were to learn here, that God had not only made the forces which have sway in nature, but, also, that He directs them continually; that He makes that easy which is hard, when we only pray him to do so in a just cause” (Von Schlόsser). In that case, however, every connection with the building of the house would be wanting, and one does not see why so general a truth should be made known to the prophet-disciples precisely on the occasion of the loss of an axe, which its owner had begged for or borrowed. The same objection applies with still more force to the opinion that the miracle of the floating iron proclaimed the following: “A light thing raises a heavy thing from the deep … The world’s history shows that in the miraculous providence of God, that which is heavy is raised by that which is light.… Iron is the symbol of sin; wood, however, serves for peace, reconciliation, sacrifice.… He who died upon the wood made all sin powerless; raised it up out of the deep where it lay buried, in history and in the individual man” (Cassel, Elisa, s. 100–106). This allegorical explanation, which is, to begin with, arbitrary and unfounded, overlooks, from the outset, the fact that it is not a question here of a piece of heavy metal, iron in general, but rather of a definite implement, which was necessary for cutting timber, of an axe which had been lost, and of the poor man who had lost it, after begging for it, and for whom it was to be recovered. In this misfortune the prophet helped him, and this is the main point; not the fact that the iron floated. According to the naturalistic explanation Elisha “pierced the hole in the axe with the pointed stick, and so lifted it up” (Knobel, Der Proph. ii. s. 98); and Kφster (Die Proph. s. 90) says: “It was very correctly asserted, even by the Jewish expositors, that this was no miracle. (Buddeus, p. 364, opposes, and maintains the miracle, but cannot tell what was the use of the sharpened stick.) The axe had flown from the handle; Elisha pierced a stick into the aperture of it, and brought it up. The edifying application of it was, that presence of mind becomes a prophet, and is valuable even in the slight affairs of every-day life.” But the text says nothing about what would here be the main point, viz.: the sharpening of the stick. χָ ?φַ ?α (ver 6) does not mean to point, to sharpen, but only to chop off (Gesenius). Besides, it is clear that the narrative is not intended to tell of some ordinary incident, which any one could do in every-day life without especial “presence of mind,” but of an act which only a prophet, by virtue of the spirit of Jehovah, could do. That he made use for this purpose of an external physical means is true not only here, but also in the case of all his miraculous deeds (cf. 1 Kings 17, Hist. § 5). AND 2 Kings 5:1-19. The Story of Naaman. (a) His Illness (2 Kings 5:1-8); (b) his cure (2 Kings 5:9-14); (c) his conversion (2 Kings 5:15-19). 2 Kings 5:1-8. Bender: Naaman; a consideration (a) of the discipline of suffering under which he was; (b) of the star of hope which arose for him in his misfortune; (c) of the path in which he was led by this hope. 2 Kings 5:1. Menken: Everywhere where there is, or seems to be, something great and fortunate, there is also a slight discordant “but,” which, like a false note in a melody, mars the perfectness of the good-fortune. A worm gnaws at everything pertaining to this world; and everything here below carries the germs of death in itself.… We ought to consider all human suffering and misery worthy of consideration, wherever we find it. It is found everywhere; it dwells in the palace and in the hovel; it is interwoven with the life of prince and beggar; and it is inseparable from all worldly happiness. This is to the end that we may perceive and be convinced that there is nothing earthly with which a man should be contented, and in which he can find true rest and the ever-enduring peace of the soul, and therefore that the poor and lowly have no reason to envy the rich and great. That which makes us happy in truth and for eternity does not depend upon rank or upon wealth.—Calwer Bibel: God treated this heathen in the way in which He is accustomed to treat His children. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ C.—Elisha’s conduct during the Syrian invasion and the siege of Samaria2 Kings 6:8 to 2 Kings 7:208 Then the king of Syria warred against [was at war with] Israel, and took counsel with his servants, saying, In such and such a place shall be my camp. 9And the man of God sent unto the king of Israel, saying, Beware that thou pass not such a place; for thither the Syrians are come down. 10And the king of Israel sent to the place which the man of God [had] told him and warned him of, and saved [protected] himself there, not once nor twice [i.e., a great manytimes]. 11Therefore the heart of the king of Syria was sore troubled for this thing; and he called his servants, and said unto them, Will ye not show me which of us is for the king of Israel? 12And one of his servants said, None, my lord, O king; but Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, telleth the king of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bedchamber. 13And he said, Go and spy where he is, that I may send and fetch him. And it was told him, saying, Behold, he is in Dothan. 14Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about. 15And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, a host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master, how shall we do? 16And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. 17And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha. 18And when they came down to him, [i.e., the Syrian, for, the Syrian army—Bδhr] Elisha prayed unto the Lord, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha. 19And Elisha said unto them, This is not the way, neither is this the city: follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom ye seek. But [And] he led them to Samaria. 20And it came to pass, when they were come into Samaria, that Elisha said, Lord, open the eyes of these men, that they may see. And the Lord opened their eyes, and they saw; and behold, they were in the midst of Samaria. 21And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them? 22And he answered, Thou shalt not smite them: wouldst thou smite [if thou shouldst do that, wouldst thou be smiting] those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master. 23And he prepared great provision for them: and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. So the [marauding] bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel. 24And it came to pass after this, that Ben-hadad king of Syria gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria. 25And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass’s head was sold for [worth] fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove’s dung 26[was worth—omit for] for five pieces of silver. And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king. 27And he said, If the Lord do not help thee, whence shall I help thee? out of the barnfloor, or out of the winepress? 28And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to-day, and we will eat my son to-morrow. 29So we boiled my son and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son. 30And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes; and he passed by upon the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh. 31Then he said, God do so and more also to me, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall stand on him this day. (32But Elisha sat [was sitting] in his house, and the elders sat [were sitting] with him; [.]) And the king sent a man from before him: but ere the messenger came to him, he [Elisha] said to the elders, See ye how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away mine head? look, when the messenger cometh, shut the door, and hold him fast at [hold him back by means of] the door: is not the sound of his master’s feet behind him? 33And while he yet talked with them, behold, the messenger came down unto him: and he said, Behold, this evil is of the Lord; what should I wait for the Lord any longer [what hope shall I still place in the Lord]? Chap. 7. 1Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord, To-morrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be sold for [be worth] a shekel, and two measures of barley for [be worth] a shekel, in the gate of Samaria. 2Then a lord [an officer, or adjutant] on whose hand the king leaned answered the man of God, and said, Behold, if the Lord would make windows in heaven might this thing be? [Verily! Jehovah is going to make windows in heaven! even then could this come to pass?] And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof. 3And there were four leprous men at the entering in of the gate: and they said one to another, Why sit we here until we die? 4If we say, We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there: and if we sit still here we die also. Now therefore come, and let us fall [away] unto the host of the Syrians: if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die. 5And they rose up in the twilight, to go unto the camp of the Syrians: and when they were come to the uttermost part [outskirts, viz., those nearest the city] of the camp of Syria, behold, there was no man there. 6For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us. 7Wherefore they arose and fled in the twilight, and left their tents, and their horses, and their asses, even the camp as it was, and fled for their life. 8And when these lepers came to the uttermost part of the camp, they went into one tent, and did eat and drink, and carried thence silver, and gold, and raiment, and went and hid it; and came again, and entered into another tent, and carried thence also, and went and hid it. 9Then they said one to another, We do not well: this day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace: if we tarry till the morning light, some mischief [penalty] will come [fall] upon us: now therefore come, that we may go and tell the king’s household. 10So they came and called unto the porter [guard] of the city: and they told them, saying, We came to the camp of the Syrians, and, behold, there was no man there, neither voice [sound] of man [a human being], but horses tied, and asses tied, 11and the tents as they were. And he [one] called the porters [guards]; and they told it to the king’s house within [reported it inside of the king’s house]. 12And the king arose in the night, and said unto his servants, I will now shew you what the Syrians have done to us. They know that we be hungry; therefore are they gone out of the camp to hide themselves in the field, saying, When they come out of the city, we shall catch them alive, and get into the city. 13And one of his servants answered and said, Let some take, I pray thee, five of the horses that remain, which are left in the city, (behold, they are as all the multitude of Israel that are left in it: behold, I say, they are even as all the multitude of the Israelites that are consumed [dead];) and let us send and see. 14They took therefore two chariot horses [two chariot-equipages]; and the king sent after the host of the Syrians [towards the Syrian camp], saying, Go and see. 15And they went after them unto Jordan: and, lo, all the way was full of garments and vessels [utensils], which the Syrians had cast away in their haste 16[hasty flight]. And the messengers returned, and told the king. And the people went out, and spoiled the tents of the Syrians. So a measure of fine flour was sold for [became worth] a shekel, and two measures of barley for [omit for] a shekel, according to the word of the Lord. 17And the king appointed the lord on whose hand he leaned to have the charge of the gate: and the people trode upon him in the gate, and he died, as the man of God had said, who spake [as he said] when the king came down to him. 18And it came to pass as the man of God had spoken to the king, saying, Two measures of barley for a shekel, and a measure of fine flour for a shekel, shall be to-morrow about this time in the gate of Samaria: 19And that lord answered the man of God, and said, Now, behold, if the Lord should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof. 20And so it fell out unto him: for the people trode upon him in the gate, and he died. AND 2 Kings 6:8. Then the king of Syria, &c. According to Ewald, the story (2 Kings 6:8-23) belongs to the time of Jehoahaz (chap 13:1–9). However, the passage immediately following begins, 2 Kings 6:24, with the words, “And it came to pass after this,” so that it also would fall in a later time; but, by the words in 2 Kings 6:26, “king of Israel,” and by Elisha’s epithet “son of a murderer,” 2 Kings 6:32, as Ewald himself admits, we must understand Jehoram, and not either Jehoahaz or any other king of the house of Jehu.—ΰֶ ?μ is used as in 2 Chronicles 20:21 : He brought to them the deliberation [i.e., made them parties to it]. τְּ ?μֹ ?πִ ?ι as in Rth 4:1; 1 Samuel 21:3. “My encamping,” i.e., the encampment of my army. The word ϊַּ ?ηֲ ?πεֹ ?ϊ, occurs only here. It is a derivative from ηָ ?πַ ?δ, to sit down, to encamp (Genesis 26:17; Exodus 13:20; Exodus 17:1). Ewald proposes to read ϊַּ ?πְ ?ηֹ ?ϊεּ, and to translate: “shall ye form an ambuscade,” because 2 Kings 6:9 says: “for there the Syrians are πְ ?ηִ ?ϊִּ ?ιν; but πָ ?ηַ ?ϊ nowhere has the meaning “to lay an ambuscade,” or “to lie in wait,” but: “to go down” or “sink down” (see Gesen. s. v.), so that it coincides very well with the meaning of ηָ ?πַ ?δ. The conjecture is therefore unnecessary. The proposal of Thenius to change ϊַּ ?ηֲ ?πεֹ ?ϊִ ?ι into ϊֵּ ?ηָֽ ?αְ ?ΰεּ, and to translate: “Ye shall conceal yourselves at such and such a place,” is still less admissible. The Vulgate has in 2 Kings 6:8 : ponamus insidias, and in 2 Kings 6:9, quia ibi Syri in insidiis sunt. The Sept. have in 2 Kings 6:8 : παρεμβαλῶ; 2 Kings 6:9 : ὅτιἐκεῖ Συρίαἐνεδρεύουσι. This is correct, however, rather according to the sense than the words, inasmuch as the army, which had encamped behind the mountains, might certainly be said to be lying in ambush. In 2 Kings 6:9, Clericus, De Wette, and Keil translate the words of Elisha: “Beware lest thou neglect this place,” i.e., leave it unoccupied, “for there it is the wish of the Syrians to make an incursion;” but ςָ ?αַ ?ψ, which means to pass over, never has the meaning to neglect; certainly not that of: to leave unoccupied. Moreover, this signification does not fit well with δִ ?ζְ ?δִ ?ιψεֹ 2 Kings 6:10, to which Keil incorrectly denies the meaning: to warn (cf. Ezekiel 33:3; Ezekiel 4:5; Ecclesiastes 4:13). At a time when the Syrians were intending to encamp at a particular spot, and to attack the Israelites when they should pass by, the prophet gave warning to the king: the latter anticipated them, stationed troops in the threatened position, and so frustrated their plan. 2 Kings 6:11. Therefore the heart of the king of Syria was sore troubled, &c. ρָ ?ςַ ?ψ means more than: to lose courage (Luther). It is used of the tossing, stormy sea (Jonah 1:11). Clericus wants to read ξַ ?μְ ?ωֶׁ ?πεּ (Cf. Proverbs 30:10) instead of ξִ ?ωֶּׁ ?μָּ ?πεּ, because the Vulg. translates: quis proditor mei sit apud regem Israel, and the Sept.: προδίδωσίμε. It may be, however, that both only translated according to the sense. At any rate it is not necessary to alter the text. From 2 Kings 6:12 we see that Elisha’s reputation at that time extended even to Syria. The old expositors thought indeed that the servant who answered the king was Naaman, or one of his companions. The king learned the dwelling of Elisha by spies. Dothan (Genesis 37:17) lay five or six hours’ journey north of Samaria, upon a hill (2 Kings 6:17), at a narrow pass in the mountains (Judges 4:5; Judges 7:3; Judges 8:3), in the district of the present Jinin (Van de Velde, Reise, i. s. 273).—The king of Syria wished to get Elisha into his power, not “that he might hold him,” and find out through him “what the king of Israel and other princes were plotting against him in their secret councils” (Cassel), but in order that, for the future, his military plans against Israel might not become known to the king of Israel through Elisha. The phrase ηַ ?ιִ ?μλָּ ?αֵ ?γ, 2 Kings 6:14, cannot here be translated: “a great army” (De Wette, and others), as is clear from 2 Kings 6:22-23, but it is used exactly as in 1 Kings 10:2. The horses and chariots were accompanied by a large body of infantry. 2 Kings 6:15. The servant of the man of God, &c. Not Gehazi, who would be mentioned by name, as in all other places (2 Kings 4:12; 2 Kings 4:25; 2 Kings 5:20; 2 Kings 8:4); moreover, the expression ξְ ?ωָׁ ?ψֵ ?ϊ is never used of him. Perhaps it was one of the prophet-disciples who had accompanied Elisha to Dothan. That which Elisha says in 2 Kings 6:16 is essentially the same as is read Numbers 14:9; 2 Chronicles 32:7; Psalms 3:6; Psalms 27:3. He saw already the divine, protecting power, and begged God to allow his attendant also to see it, that he might undertake the journey back to Samaria with him, through the hostile army, fearless and consoled. “The opening of the eyes signifies elevation into an ecstatic state in which the soul sees things which the bodily eye never can see” (Keil, ed. of 1845), Numbers 22:31; The horses and chariots which Elisha and the servant see (2 Kings 6:17), stand over-against the horses and chariots of the Syrians (2 Kings 6:15), and they are designated by ΰֵ ?ωׁ, the form of appearance of Jehovah (see above, p. 14), as from God, so that they are symbols of the might of Jehovah, which surpasses all human, earthly might, and is unconquerable. We have not to think of literal chariots and horses of fire here, any more than in 2 Kings 2:11. Usually, Genesis 32:2 is compared, but there express mention is made of angels, who are not to be identified directly with the horses and chariots of a vision.—The Syrians are usually understood as subject of εַ ?ιֵּ ?ψְ ?γεּ ΰֵ ?μָ ?ιε in 2 Kings 6:18, but in that case we must suppose that they were on a hill from which they descended when they saw Elisha and his companion go out from the city. Keil adopts this supposition, for he says: “Dothan stands upon a hill, which stands by itself on the plain, but it is surrounded or shut in on the east side by a ridge which runs out into the plain (cf. Van de Velde, l. c., s. 273). The Syrians who had been sent out against Elisha had taken up a position on this ridge, and from there they marched down against the city of Dothan, which lay upon the hill, while Elisha, by going out of the city, escaped from them.” This idea is contradicted, however, by the assertion, in 2 Kings 6:14, that the Syrians “surrounded the city” in the night. They enclosed it, therefore, and did not simply take up a position on the east side upon a hill, which was, besides, separated from it by the plain. Furthermore, according to 2 Kings 6:17, it was not the ridge upon which the Syrians are said to have stood, but the hill upon which Dothan was, which was full of horses and chariots of fire, round about Elisha, under whose mighty protection he and his servant went out of the city and down the hill. The Syrian army surrounded the hill at its base, so that escape seemed impossible; the heavenly army, however, surrounded the city at the top of the hill, and so stood opposed to the Syrian. This is clearly the meaning of the passage. In the immediately following words (2 Kings 6:18): “and they went down,” the reference can only be to Elisha and his companion, who are the subjects of the words immediately preceding. If the words are not taken as referring to them, then there is no statement that they left the city, and there is a gap in the narrative. Accordingly ΰֵ ?μָ ?ιε must be taken as referring to the Syrian army. The Syriac version and Josephus take it so (’Ελισσαῖος … παρελθὼνεἰςμέσουςτοὺςἐχθρούς). There is no need of assuming that ΰֲ ?μֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν stood in the text originally in the place of ΰֵ ?μָ ?ιε, as Thenius does, for ΰֲ ?ψָ ?ν is often used in the singular for the Syrian army (2 Kings 6:9; 1 Kings 22:35), and is construed with the verb in the singular (1 Samuel 10:14-15; Isaiah 7:2).—And he smote them with blindness, i.e., they were put into a state in which, although they had their sight, yet they did not see him (Elisha), i.e., did not recognize him. Jarchi: They saw, but did not know (ιεγς) what they saw. Cf. Genesis 19:11 (Luke 24:16; Isaiah 6:10).—On 2 Kings 6:19 Keil says: “Elisha’s untrue declaration: ‘This is not the way,’ must be judged like every other military stratagem, by means of which the enemy are deceived;” but, as Thenius well replies: “There is no untruth in the words of Elisha; for his home was not in Dothan, where he was only residing temporarily, but in Samaria; and the words ‘to the man’ may well mean: to his house.” Josephus understood the passage correctly; he says: “Elisha asked them whom they had come to seek. When they answered: “The prophet Elisha,” παραδώσεινὑπέσχετο, εἰ πρὸςτὴνπόλιν, ἐνᾖ τυγχάνειὢν (i.e., where he is to be found), ἀκολουθήσειαναὐτῷ. He certainly used a form of speech which the Syrians might understand otherwise than as he meant it, but he did not pretend in the least to be anything else than what he was. That they did not know him was a divine dispensation, not the result of an untruth uttered by him. How could the “man of God,” after repeated prayers to Jehovah, straightway permit himself a falsehood, and try, by this means, to save himself from danger? If he saw, as his companion did, horses and chariots of fire round about him, and if he was thus assured of the divine protection, then he needed for his deliverance neither a falsehood nor a stratagem. The Syrians wanted to take him captive; instead of that he, by the help of God, captured them all; not, however, as is usually the case in such a ruse, to their harm or ruin, but, after he has shown them that they could not capture him, “the prophet in Israel” (2 Kings 6:12), he takes them under his protection, repays evil with good (2 Kings 6:22), and shows them by this very means the man whom they are seeking. 2 Kings 6:21. And the king of Israel.… when he saw them, &c. The address: “My father,” does not presuppose any filial relationship, but is rather a mere title (Clericus: sic honoris causa dicitur). Even Benhadad is called “thy (Elisha’s) son,” by Hazael (2 Kings 8:9). The prophet-disciples called their master “father,” and this because it was the ordinary title of the chief of the prophets, somewhat as the same word is occasionally used now-a-days. The repetition of ΰַ ?λֶּ ?δ expresses the eager desire to smite them. Elisha’s words (2 Kings 6:22): δΰωׁ ?ψ &c., are taken by many expositors as a question [as in the E. V.], the idea being: if thou dost not even put to death those whom thou hast captured with bow and spear, how canst thou slay these? (Thenius, Keil). Such a question, however, would be very extraordinary; for if Jehoram was not accustomed to put to death even those who had been made captive in battle, why should he ask whether he should kill these, who had fallen into his hands without a combat? It seems more probable, on the contrary, that he was accustomed to put captives to death, in accordance with the prevalent war-usage of the time (Deuteronomy 20:13), and he raises the question, in the present extraordinary case, only out of consideration for the prophet, and because he does not trust his own judgment in the unprecedented circumstances. The Vulgate gives the sense correctly: non percuties; neque enim cepisti eos gladio et arcu tuo, ut percutias. The objection that δ, the article, could not have patach before ΰ cannot be held to be decisive against this interpretation; the Massoretes themselves took δ as the article (Gesen. Lex. s. v. δ; De Wette). [I take δ to be the interrogative (Ewald, § 104, b), but agree with the above interpretation. “If thou shouldst put these to death, would it be a case of slaying prisoners of war?” i.e., couldst thou justify it by Deuteronomy 20:13?—W. G. S.] No one doubts that λָּ ?ψָ ?δλֵּ ?ψָ ?δ, in 2 Kings 6:23, signifies the preparation of a meal. The only disagreement is as to the connection of this signification with the fundamental meaning of the root. According to Thenius the root is λּ ?εּ ?ψ, which, with its derivatives, always refers to something round; hence, λֵּ ?ψָ ?δ the circle of guests. According to Keil, λָּ ?ψָ ?δ, to dig, gradually acquired the meaning: to prepare, make ready, so that it ought here to be rendered: paravit apparatum magnum. According to Dietrich (in Gesen. Lex. s. v.), the cognate dialects lead to the idea of bringing together or uniting, which, he thinks, is the fundamental idea in a banquet. Cf. c�na from κοινή.—The result of Elisha’s act was that, from this time on, the raids of the Syrians ceased, not indeed because the magnanimity of the Israelites shamed them, but because they had found out that they could not accomplish anything by these expeditions, but rather brought themselves into circumstances of great peril. 2 Kings 6:24. And it came to pass after this, &c. Josephus correctly states the connection between the passage which begins with 2 Kings 6:24, and what precedes, as follows: κρύφαμὲνοὐκέτιδιέγνωτῷ τῶν ’Ισραηλιτῶνἐπιχειρεῖνβασιλεῖ, τὸν ’Ελισαῖονδεδοικώς· φανερῶςδὲ πολεμεῖνἕκρινε, τῷ πλήθειτῆςστρατιᾶςκαὶ τῇ δυνάμεινομίζωνπεριέσεσθαιτῶνπολεμίων. Nevertheless, an interval of some years must be supposed to have elapsed between the two incidents. Ben-Hadad is not an appellative, like Pharaoh; it is the same king who is mentioned in 1 Kings 20:1. In order to show the depth of the distress from the famine, the writer states the price of things which are not ordinarily articles of food. The worst part of an animal, which, at best, was unclean, the head of an ass, sold for 80 shekels, according to Bertheau and Keil, 35 thalers ($25.20), according to Thenius 53 thalers, 20 sgr. ($38.64). In like manner, in a famine among the Cadusians, Plutarch (Artaxerxes, 24.) tells that the head of an ass was scarcely to be bought for 60 drachmζ, whereas, ordinarily, the entire animal only cost 25 or 30 drachmζ). The price of a mouse rose to 200 denarii in Casalinum, when it was besieged by Hannibal (Pliny, Hist. Nat. viii. 57; Valer. Max., vii. 6).—There is no doubt that ηψιιεπιν, i.e., ηָ ?ψֵ ?ιιεֹ ?πִ ?ιν, means “dove’s dung,” and not “dove’s food” (Berleb. and Calw. Bibel); the only question is, whether this is to be taken literally, or whether it is a designation of a very insignificant species of pease. Bochart maintains the latter (Hieroz. ii. 44), and he appeals to the fact that χַ ?α is really a measure of grain: so also Clericus, Dathe, Michaelis, and others. The Arabs call the herba alcali “sparrow’s dung.” Celsius (Hierobot. ii. p. 30), on the contrary, maintains the literal meaning, which is supported by the keri γִּ ?αְ ?ιεֹ ?πִ ?ιν, fluxus, profluvium columbarum (γִּ ?ια from the Chald. γּ ?εּ ?α, to flow), a euphemism for the chetib. So also Ewald and Thenius; the latter says: “If snipe’s dung is eaten as a luxury, necessity may well make dove’s dung (2 Kings 18:27; Joseph. Bella. Jud. v. 13, 7) acceptable.” Gesenius and Keil do not decide. We incline to the interpretation which makes it a kind of vegetable. Supposing even that dung was collected for food, as was the case, according to Josephus, at the destruction of Jerusalem, why should dove’s dung be especially used? There is, moreover, no instance of dove’s dung having been used as food, and sold at so high a price. The meanest form of vegetable seems to be here put in contrast with the meanest form of flesh. The vegetable probably took its name from the similarity of color (white) and form, as in the case of the German Teufelsdreck (assaf�tida). Cab is the smallest Hebrew dry-measure; according to Bertheau, it is equivalent to 27.58 cubic inches (Paris), and, according to Bunsen, to 56.355. Five shekels are equal to 2 thlr. 2 sgr. ($1.49, Keil), or 3 thlr. 10 sgr. ($2.40, Thenius). 2 Kings 6:26. And as the King of Israel was passing by, &c. The wall of the city was very thick; the garrison of the city stood upon it; the king went thither in order to visit the posts, or to observe the movements of the enemy.—If the Lord do not help thee, whence, &c. ΰַ ?μ is taken here, by many, in its ordinary signification, ne: May the Lord not help thee! i.e., perdat te Jehovah (Clericus). If this is correct, the king invokes a curse upon her (Josephus: ὀργισθεὶςἐπηράσατοαὺτῇ τὸνθεόν). The following words, however, “Whence,” &c., do not coincide with this interpretation. The same is the case if we translate, with Maurer, vereor, ut Deus te servet. Keil’s translation: No! let Jehovah help thee! (i.e., do not ask me, let, &c.) is still more inadmissible, for ΰַ ?μ must not be separated from ιεֹ ?ωִׁ ?ςֵ ?κְ, with which it is connected by a makkeph. It evidently stands here for ΰִ ?νμֹ ?ΰ (Ew. § 355, b), and the meaning is: “On the general supposition that there is no help for her: ‘If God does not help thee, how can I?’ ” (Thenius). Cassel’s interpretation of the words as a “rebellious invocation of God,” is entirely mistaken: “Let God help thee: why does not the Eternal, whom ye have in Israel, and who has always revealed himself here, help thee? Where is He, then, that he may help us?” They are rather words of despair.—Out of the barn-floor or out of the wine-press? as much as to say: with corn or with wine? (Genesis 27:28; Genesis 27:37); not, corn and oil, for ιֶ ?χֶ ?α is wine-press (Proverbs 3:10). [The distress has reached a point where God’s interposition alone can provide food. If He does not interpose, how can I satisfy thy hunger? from the threshing-floor or the wine-press—the only human resources in case of hunger? Thou knowest that these are exhausted, and that the limits of my power of relief have been passed. Address thyself, therefore, to God. If He does not help thee, much less can I. The difficulty of the passage is one that is common enough. There is an unexpressed promise, viz., the circumstances of the case, which are vividly present to the mind of both hearer and speaker, and an unexpressed conclusion, viz., the proper inference to be drawn, or the proper conduct to be pursued, in the promises. The first speaker has drawn a false inference from the facts, and the question aims to lead him to a correct judgment. Hence ΰַ ?μ is used, very nearly in the sense of ΰνμֹ ?ΰ.—W. G. S.] When the woman had, probably, replied to the king that she did not demand food of him, but appealed to him as judge, he asked her: What aileth thee? Thereupon she relates the horrible incident, in which the existing misery had attained its height. The other woman had hidden her child, not in order to consume it alone, but in order to save it. Her act reminds us of 1 Kings 3:26. 2 Kings 6:30. He rent his clothes, &c., as a sign of horror and of grief. As he stood upon the wall, and therefore could be seen by all, the people observed that he had sackcloth next his body, like Ahab, 1 Kings 21:27, under the royal garment, which he tore open. Sackcloth was usually worn next the skin (Isaiah 20:2-3), only the prophets and preachers of repentance appear to have worn it over the under-garment, because in their case it was an official dress, and so needed to be seen (Winer, R.-W.-B. ii. s. 352). The sentence: He passed by upon the wall, is not, according to Thenius, to be connected with what follows, but, as the athnach shows, with what goes before. Jehoram did not wear sackcloth in order to make a show before the people, for they could not see it before he tore the cloak which was above it; neither did he wear it out of genuine penitent feeling, for, in that case, he could not have sworn, with sackcloth upon his body, to put to death the prophet, whom he had called “Father,” and to whom he was under such deep obligations. He wished, by means of this external action, to turn aside the wrath of God; “He thought that he had done enough, by this external self-chastisement, to satisfy God, and he wished now, in a genuine heathen disposition, to be revenged upon Elisha, since he learned from this story that the famine had not ceased” (Von Gerlach). It is not necessary to understand that Elisha had distinctly demanded that he should put on the garment of penitence (Ewald); perhaps the prophet had only exhorted generally to penitence, and the king, in order to put an end to the distress, had put on sackcloth. He become enraged at the prophet, partly because he believed himself deceived by him, if he, as we may suppose, had given the advice not to surrender the city [“If it had not been for him (Elisha), he (the king) would long before have surrendered the city on conditions,” Ewald], but to rely upon the help of Jehovah, and partly because he thought that the prophet might have put an end to the distress if he had chosen, and thereby might have prevented the horrible crime of the women. The oath reminds one of that of Jezebel against Elijah (1 Kings 19:2). 2 Kings 6:32. But Elisha sat in his house, &c. The narrative in 2 Kings 6:30-33 seems to be somewhat condensed, and to require to be supplemented. This, however, can be done with tolerable certainty from the context. The sentence: Elisha sat in his house, and the elders sat with him, is a parenthesis; the following, and he, namely, the king (not Elisha, as Kφster and Cassel suppose), sent, &c., joins directly on to 2 Kings 6:31. δַ ?ζְּ ?χֵ ?πִ ?ιν can only refer to the magistrates of the city, not to the prophets or prophet-disciples (Josephus). They had not been sent in order to report to Elisha how far matters had come in the city (Cassel), but had betaken themselves to the prophet, since no one any longer could give counsel, in the great distress, in order to take his advice, and to beg for his assistance. While they were thus assembled the king sent a man, ξִ ?μְּ ?τָ ?πָ ?ιε, not, before him (Luther and others), but, from his presence, i.e., one of those men who stood before him, and, as servants, waited for his commands (1 Kings 10:8; Daniel 1:4-5), just as we see in Genesis 41:46. This man was to behead Elisha, in fulfilment of the oath which the king had sworn in his excitement. Perceiving in spirit what was being done (as in 2 Kings 5:26), the prophet says to the elders: See ye, i.e., do ye know, &c. He applies to Jehoram the significant epithet: son of a murderer; as by descent, so also in disposition, is he a son of Ahab, the murderer of the prophets, and of the innocent Naboth, (1 Kings 21:19); filius patrizat. With the words: Is not the sound, &c, Elisha straightway announces that the king will follow upon the heels of the messenger (cf. 1 Kings 14:6), and he calls upon the elders not to let in the messenger until the king himself comes. 2 Kings 6:33. And while he yet talked with them, &c. The first question is, what is the subject of εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ? If we take δַ ?ξַּ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?κְ to be the subject, then we must suppose, as Thenius, Cassel, and others do, that the messenger speaks the words: “This evil is of the Lord,” &c, as the mouthpiece of the king, since they certainly are the words of the latter. This, however, is, in the first place, very forced, because he must have expressed it by saying: The king commands me to say to you, &c, but it is imperatively excluded by the consideration that the king, according to 2 Kings 7:17, was present, and so the messenger could not speak in his name, in his presence. Ewald, taking account of 7:17, wishes to read δַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ for δַ ?ξַּ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?κְ, but then the affirmation that the messenger, whom the elders were to restrain until the arrival of the king, really came, would be wanting from the text. The simplest course seems to be to supply δַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ as the subject of εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ (there is an athnach after ΰֵ ?μָ ?ιε) and to supplement the text here by what is stated in 7:17. The sense would then be: And the king, who had followed close upon his messenger, said, &c. Why did the king follow his servant? Certainly not “in order to see what was the result of his command” (Ewald); nor, “in order to be assured that his commands had been executed” (Eisenlohr); but, on the contrary, “in order to restrain the execution of a command which he had giver, in an excess of rage” (Keil). Even Josephus says: “Jehoram repented of the wrath against the prophet, which had overcome him, and, as he feared lest the messenger might have already executed his commands, he hastened to prevent it, if possible.”—Behold, this evil is of the Lord, &c, i.e., Jehovah has brought it to this pass that mothers slay and eat their own children; what further shall I then hope for or expect from Him? By these words, “he means to show the prophet that he no longer refuses to recognize the chastising hand of God in the prevailing distress, and then he desires to learn from him whether the divine wrath will not be turned aside, and whether the distressed city may not hope for aid” (Krummacher). To these verba hominis pene desperantis (Vatablus), Elisha replies in 2 Kings 7:1, with a promise of immediate and extraordinary deliverance. The interpretation: The distress is so great that no help can any longer be hoped for, so that nothing remains but to surrender the city; thou, however, who hast prophesied falsely, and hast vainly promised help, and therefore art to blame for the calamity, thou shouldst justly suffer death (Seb. Smith, and similarly Thenius), is entirely mistaken. If this were the sense, Elisha’s solemn promise would seem to have been forced from him by the threat of death, whereas it rather serves to shame the king, who had doubted of Jehovah, and is, therefore, an answer fully worthy of the prophet. Jehoram had already given up his plan of murder when he followed his messenger. [His despair is, to a certain extent, intended as an excuse for his murderous project. It is as if he had said: God sends me only calamity upon calamity. Is it strange that my faith deserts me, and that I can no longer hope or believe that God will ultimately help? This despair produced the blind and senseless rage against thee. I have recovered from that madness, but how can I hope longer? This hope seems only to delay the catastrophe, and to make it worse the longer it is deferred. The prophet answers the despair by a new, definite, and confident prediction.—W. G. S.] Chap. 7. 2 Kings 7:1. Hear ye the word of the Lord, &c. The solemnity and distinctness with which the prophet addresses the king, the elders, and the others who are present, must not be overlooked.—On ρְ ?ΰָ ?δ see note on 1 Kings 18:32.—In the gate of Samaria, i.e., the place where the market was usually held (Winer, R.-W.-B. ii. s. 616). On δַ ?ωָּׁ ?μִ ?ιωׁ and the following form of speech see note on 1 Kings 9:22, and 2 Kings 5:18. Instead of μַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ, all the versions read δַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ, which, according to 2 Kings 7:17 and 2 Kings 5:18, is the correct reading; the dative gives no sense.—The words of the “lord” in 2 Kings 7:2 are the scoff and jest of unbelief; Jehovah will indeed open windows in heaven, and cause it to rain barley and meal! will that come to pass? Thenius connects the two sentences thus: “Supposing even that the Lord should make windows in heaven, will this (viz., the promised cheapness and plenty) even then come to pass?” This interpretation finds in the words only doubt, and not bitter scorn, but, from the threat with which Elisha answers, it seems that the latter must be included. “Windows in heaven” may be an allusion to Genesis 7:11. 2 Kings 7:3. Four leprous men, cf. Leviticus 13:46; Numbers 5:2 sq. No one any longer brought them food from the city, and they were not permitted to enter it. In order to escape death from hunger, they proposed to go over to the camp of the enemy at dusk, when they would not be seen from the city. That αַ ?πֶּ ?ωֶׁ ?σ (2 Kings 7:5) does not mean “early in the morning” (Luther), is clear from 2 Kings 7:9; 2 Kings 7:12.—χεֹ ?μ, in 2 Kings 7:6, can only be understood of a continuous and increasing rushing and roaring in the air, by which the Syrians were deceived. There are instances, even now-a-days, that people in certain mountainous regions regard a rushing and roaring sound, such as is sometimes heard there, as a sign of a coming war.—On the kings of the Hittites, see note on 1 Kings 10:29. The slight remains of the nations of the Hittites having been subjugated by Solomon (1 Kings 9:20), we have to understand that reference is made here not, as Thenius thinks, to “an independent remnant of this people, living near their ancient home (Genesis 15:20; Numbers 13:29), towards the river of Egypt,” but, to an independent Canaanitish tribe, which had withdrawn into the northern part of Palestine. “ ‘The kings of the Egyptians’ must not be understood too literally; they are only involuntarily mentioned for the sake of the balance of the phrases” (Thenius). Both expressions are only meant to convey, in general terms, the idea that people from the north and from the south are on the march to the assistance of the Israelites, so that danger threatens the Syrians upon all sides. [It is worth while to notice also the graphic force which is given to the story by quoting what purport to be the exact speeches of all the parties. We are told just what Elisha said, and what the officer said, and what the lepers said, and finally what the Syrians said, as if the speeches had been recorded at the time they were uttered. But how could any one tell what the Syrians said in their encampment at night? Evidently the writer puts himself in the place of the Syrians, and imagines what their interpretation of any sudden alarm would be. Instead of stating this in the flat and colorless form in which a modern historian would state it: The Syrians thought that some one was coming to help the Israelites—he gives the speech in what purport to be the exact words. The mention of the king of the Hittites is very strange. No such nation as the Hittites any longer existed, and the kings of Egypt did not interfere in Asiatic affairs throughout this entire period. Yet we should expect that the Hebrew writer would ascribe to the Syrians such fears as they would be likely to have under the circumstances.—W. G. S.] On ΰֶ ?μΞπַ ?τְ ?ωָׁ ?ν see note on 1 Kings 19:3. 2 Kings 7:9. Then they said one to another, &c. After they had satisfied their hunger and loaded themselves with booty, it occurred to them that officium civium est, ea indicare, quae ad salutem publicam pertinent (Grotius). They were justly anxious lest they might be punished if they should longer conceal the joyful intelligence from the king and the city.—In 2 Kings 7:10, Thenius wishes to read, with all the oriental versions, ωֹׁ ?ςֲ ?ψֵ ?ι, watchmen, instead of ωֹׁ ?ςֵ ?ψ, because μָ ?ηֶ ?ν follows. Maurer and Keil take the singular collectively for the body of persons who were charged with the guard of the city.—The subject of εַ ?ιִּ ?χְ ?ψָ ?ΰ, 2 Kings 7:11, is not the speaker among the lepers, but the soldier on guard. He could not leave his post, so he called to the other soldiers who were within the gate, and they then gave news of the occurrence to the guards in the palace. The attendants of the mistrustful king (2 Kings 7:12) give him very sensible advice, the sum of which is, “However it may turn out, nothing worse can happen to the troops we send out than has already happened to many others, or than will yet happen to the rest” (Berleb. Bibel). “Five” is here as it is in Isaiah 30:17; 1 Corinthians 14:19; Leviticus 26:8, a general designation of a small number. The origin of this use of language is probably that five, as the half of ten, is opposed to this number, which expresses perfection and completeness, to denote the imperfect and incomplete: so that it means a few horses. According to 2 Kings 7:14 (two chariots) there were not five, but four. Two chariots, or equipages, were sent, in order, we may suppose, that if one were captured, the other might quickly bring the news. 2 Kings 7:16 sq. And the people went out, &c. We may well imagine with what eagerness. The king had given to his adjutant (2 Kings 7:2) command to maintain order, but the people trod him down in the gate. He was not “crushed in the crowd,” as Ewald states, but trodden under foot (ψָ ?ξַ ?ν Isaiah 41:25). This can hardly have taken place unintentionally, for why should it have happened just to him? Probably the eager and famished people would not listen to his commands, and bore down his attempts to control them. The repetition of the prophet’s prediction (2 Kings 7:1-2) in 2 Kings 7:18-19, shows what weight the narrative lays upon its fulfilment. It is meant to be, as it were, “a finger of warning to unbelief” (Calwer Bibel), and designates this fulfilment as the object and the main point of the entire narrative. AND ETHICAL1. With the story of these two incidents now, we pass, in this rιsumι of the prophetical acts of Elisha (see above, Historical on chap. 4), to those which bear upon the political circumstances and fortunes of the nation and of its king. First come those which are connected with its foreign affairs. The especial danger from without was from the Syrians. Benhadad was the chief and bitterest enemy, who was evidently determined to subjugate Israel. He did not succeed in this; he only served as a rod of chastisement to bring back the king and the people from their apostasy to their God. Jehovah rescued them again and again from his hand; not by the hand of the king, nor by mighty armies, nor by great generals, but by the “man of God,” the prophet, in order that all might perceive that salvation from the might of the sworn foe was not a work of human strength or wisdom, but was due to Him alone, the God of Israel, to testify of whom was Elisha’s calling. The two incidents belong together, for one of them shows how his secret plans and cunning plots, and the other, how his open assaults, with the employment of the entire force at his disposal, were brought to naught by the intervention of the prophet. If anything could have done it, these extraordinary proofs of the might, the faithfulness, and the long-suffering of Jehovah, ought to have brought Jehoram to a recognition of his fault, and to reformation (2 Kings 3:3). This is the point of view from which both narratives must be considered. 2. In the first incident, Elisha appears in the distinct character of a seer, ψֹ ?ΰֶ ?δ, which was the older name for a πָ ?αִ ?ιΰ (1 Samuel 9:9). He “sees” the place where the Syrians have determined to encamp, not once, only, but as often as they formed a plan, and, when they came to take him captive, he saw the heavenly protecting powers, and, at his prayer, the eyes of his attendant were opened, so that he, too, saw them, whereas the enemy were struck with blindness. This gift of secret sight, while one is in clear possession of all the faculties of consciousness, is similar to that of prophecy. Both are effects of the spirit of Jehovah, which non semper tangit corda prophetarum, nee de omnibus (Syra), nec datur illis per modum habitus, sic ut est in artifice (Sanctius). The prophet only sees what others do not see when Jehovah grants it to him, and his sight does not apply to all things whatsoever, nor to all events, as its legitimate objects, but only to those things which pertain directly or indirectly to the relation to Jehovah and to the guidance of the people of Israel as a nation, or as individuals. [Moreover, it is not in the power of the prophet, by any physical and ever-available means, to bring about this state of the soul at will]. This sight is therefore something entirely different from so-called clairvoyance, which has nothing in common with divine revelation. It may be asked why Elisha, who saw the places where the Syrians would encamp, and would attack Israel, did not also foresee their coming to Dothan, and the danger which threatened him of being captured by them. Cassel (Elisa, s. 116) is of the opinion that “he must have known it; yet he remained at Dothan and awaited the hostile emissaries: he knew that there were more with him than all the enemies together could muster.” This opinion, however, has no foundation in the text. On the contrary, it is clearly declared that the arrival of the Syrians was not observed until the morning, and that it was totally unexpected. If Elisha had known beforehand, by a divine revelation, that they were coming, he would have regarded it as a direction to escape from the threatening danger, and not to remain any longer in Dothan, as Elijah once fled from Jezreel (1 Kings 19:3), and Joseph from Bethlehem (Matthew 2:14). The great danger which suddenly came upon him, without his knowledge or fault, was a trial of faith for him and for his attendant. While the latter fell into anxiety and terror on account of it, Elisha showed himself a true “man of God” in that he trusted firmly in his Lord and God, and spoke courageously to his companion: “Fear not.” In this firm faith he experienced the truth of what is written in Psalms 34:1; Psalms 91:11. 3. The conduct of Elisha towards the band of Syrians, which had been sent out against him, is not, as might at first appear, a mere pendant to the similar incident in Elijah’s history (2 Kings 1:9-16). It cannot even be compared with it, for the persons and the circumstances are of an entirely different character. The emissaries, who were sent to take Elijah captive, were sent out by a king of Israel, who despised the God of Israel, and sought succor from the Fly-god of the Philistines. They were also themselves Israelites who, being of a like disposition with their king, mocked the prophet of Jehovah. Under these circumstances an act of kindness and forgiveness on the part of the prophet, whose high calling it was to pronounce, by word and deed, the judgment of God upon all apostasy, would have been a renunciation of his calling (see above, p. 6). Benhadad, on the other hand, was a heathen, who did not know the living God of Israel. His troops were blind instruments of his will, who did not know what they were doing, and did not scoff at the God of Israel, or at his prophet. Besides, Elisha’s act was not merely a piece of good-nature and magnanimity, it was rather a prophetical act, in the strict sense of the words, which had no other aim than to glorify the God of Israel. Not for his own sake did Elisha pray Jehovah to smite the Syrians with blindness, but in order that he might lead them to Samaria. The thanks for their surrender into the hands of the king were due, not to him, but to Jehovah. Jehoram was to learn once more to recognize the faithfulness and might of Jehovah, and to be convinced that there was a prophet in Israel (2 Kings 5:8), from the fact that these dangerous enemies were delivered into his hands without a blow. On the other hand, Benhadad and the Syrians were to learn that they could not accomplish anything, with all their cunning plots, against the “prophet that is in Israel” (2 Kings 6:12), and much less, against Him whose servant and witness this prophet was. From this time on, therefore, they ceased their raids, as is expressly stated in 2 Kings 6:23. The release, entertainment, and dismissal of the troops was a deep mortification to them. The slaughter of the captives, on the contrary, would have frustrated the purpose of the prophet’s act. 4. The miraculous features of this story some have attempted to explain, that is, to do away with, in various ways. Knobel (Der Proph. der Hebr., ii. ss. 93, 98 sq.) remarks upon the incident as follows: “Inasmuch as Elisha had extended his journeys as far as Syria (2 Kings 8:7), he had gained information of the plans of the Syrians against Israel. This information, as a good patriot, he did not fail to make known to his king. He led the Syrians, who do not appear to have known either him or the locality, to Samaria. The inability to recognize the person as Elisha, or the place as Dothan, was, inasmuch as the safety of a man of God was at stake, caused by God; all the more, seeing that it appeared to be extraordinary and miraculous that they should not see that which was directly before their eyes. The cessation of this inability was then an opening of their eyes by God. Sudden insight into things which have long been before the eyes and yet have not been perceived, the Hebrews regarded as being directly given by God.… The horses and chariots of fire in the narrative are a purely mythical feature.” This explanation is almost more difficult to explain than the narrative itself. Nothing is said anywhere about frequent journeys of Elisha to Syria. Only one such journey is mentioned, and that later (2 Kings 8:7). He could only have gained knowledge of Benhadad’s plans from his immediate and most familiar circle of attendants. These attendants, however, reject any hypothesis of treachery, and cannot explain Elisha’s knowledge in any way except on the ground that he is a “prophet,” i.e., himself sees the things which are plotted in the king’s bed-chamber. So far from conspiring with Elisha, these servants of Benhadad find out his place of abode, and so bring about the attempt to capture him. Then, when a company is sent to Dothan, and really arrives there, they must have known where the place was, and that they were there and not elsewhere. Furthermore, how could, not a single individual, but a whole company, allow themselves to be deceived by a man who was unknown to them, and to be led away five hours’ journey without getting “insight into that which was directly before their eyes?” The fiery horses and chariots, finally, are a symbolic but not a mythical feature (see above, p. 14). Ewald’s explanation is much more probable than this rationalistic interpretation. According to him, Elisha proved himself “the most faithful counsellor, and the most reliable defence of the king and people, by pursuing the plans of the Arameans with the sharpest eye, and by frustrating them often single-handed, by means of his sure foresight and tireless watchfulness. The memory of this activity is preserved in 2 Kings 6:8 sq., where we have a vigorous sketch of it, as it had taken form in the popular imagination.” If, however, the prophet’s second-sight, which is the central point of the entire story, is a product only of the popular imagination which, at a later time, wrought upon the story, then we no longer have history before us, and the “man of God,” who is especially presented to us as seer and prophet, sinks down into a wise and prudent statesman. It would then be an enigma how he could have “sure forebodings” of the presence of the enemy at this or that place, and could give them out as certain facts. According to Kφster, the gift of sight, which was imparted to the companion of Elisha, at the prayer of the latter, is only a “beautiful representation of the idea that the eye of faith sees the sure protection of God where, to the vulgar eye, all is dark.” In like manner Thenius says: “It is a glorious thought, that the veil of earthly nature is here lifted for a moment, for a child of earth, that he may cast a look upon the workings of the divine Providence.” But here we have not an idea, be it ever so beautiful, clothed in history, but an historical fact. The prayer of Elisha does not mean: Give him faith in the sovereignty of divine Providence; or: Strengthen this faith in him; but: Give him power to see that which, in the ordinary course of things, it is not permitted to a man to see. His companion then sees, not the thought-image of his own brain, but that which Jehovah allows him to see in symbolic form. In like manner it was a dispensation of Providence that the Syrians did not see, in spite of their open eyes. [The author vindicates the literal historical accuracy of the record, but his opponents bring out its practical importance. Let us suppose that, as a matter of historical fact, on a certain day, a certain man, under certain, circumstances, looked up and saw in the air “chariots and horses of fire,” or something else, for which “chariots and horses of fire” is a symbolic expression. The practical religious importance of the incident lies in the fact that he was thereby convinced that God protects His own. The prophet’s object in his prayer could be none other than that he might be thus confirmed in the faith, and the edification of the story depends upon these two deductions: God protects His servants; and, to the eye of faith, this protection is evident, when earthly eyes see it not.—W. G. S.] 5. The narrative of the second incident gives us information of the great famine in Samaria during the siege by the Syrians. It is impossible not to perceive the intention of showing, in the description of this siege, how the threats in Leviticus 26:26-29, and Deuteronomy 28:51-53, against transgressions of the covenant, were here fulfilled; for the separate incidents, which are here referred to, correspond literally to those threats. The famine, such as had hardly ever before been experienced, and especially the abominable crimes which it occasioned, referred back to those threats, so that they forced the people to observe the violation of the covenant, and the great guilt of king and people, and, in so far, were the strongest possible warning to return to the God whom they had abandoned. As for the abomination wrought by the two women, nothing like it occurs anywhere but in the history of Israel; at least, no one has yet been able to cite any incident of the kind from profane history. According to Lamentations 2:20; Lamentations 4:10 (cf. Jeremiah 19:9; Ezech. 5:10), something similar seems to have occurred during the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25; Jeremiah 39); and Josephus (Bell. Jud., vi. 34) relates that, at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, a noble lady slew her child and ate a part of it, an action which filled even the Romans with horror, and caused Titus to declare that he would not permit “that the sun should shine upon a city on earth in which mothers nourished themselves with such food.” That such abominations were perpetrated precisely among that people which had been thought worthy to be the bearer of the revelation and knowledge of the one living God, only proves that if such a people once falls away from its God, it sinks deeper than another which does not know Him, but adores dumb idols. 6. The deliverance of Samaria, like that of the three kings in the war with the Moabites, did not take place by a miracle, in the accurate sense of the word, but it belongs, nevertheless, as that does, in the rank of the events which bear witness to the special divine governance of Israel (see above, p. 36). Josephus’ opinion that God raised a great tumult in the ears of the Syrians (ἤρχετοὁ θεὸςκτύπονἁρμάτωνκαὶ ὅπλωνταῖςἀκοαῖςαὐτῶνἐνηχεῖν) does not agree with the text, which distinctly mentions a real and strong roaring. Still less is χεֹ ?μ to be rendered by “rumor” (Knobel: “The Syrians raised the siege suddenly, because they heard a rumor that the Egyptians and Hittites were on the march against them”). The threefold repetition of the word, which, moreover, never means rumor, is against this interpretation. As for the prediction of deliverance, by Elisha, that can never be explained on naturalistic grounds. Knobel leaves it undecided “whether Elisha, who probably had intrigues with the Syrians, succeeded in starting such a report among them, or whether, in reality, an hostile army was advancing upon the Syrians, of which fact Elisha had information.” The first hypothesis falls to the ground when we consider that it was no “rumor” at all, but a rushing and roaring noise, which the Syrians heard. The alternative is just as unfounded, for all the external communications of the city were cut off, and the approaching army, of which, however, history makes no mention, must have been so near already that the noise of its march would be heard, not only in the Syrian camp, but also in Samaria; or, can we conceive that Elisha might have ordered up an Egyptian and Hittite army, over night, and that this might have marched at once? Ewald’s notion that the prophet’s promise of deliverance only shows the “lofty confidence” with which he met “the despairing complaints” of the king, is equally unsatisfactory. It would have been more than foolhardy in the prophet to proclaim, as the word of Jehovah, before the king, his attendants, and the elders, something which he, after all, only guessed, and which was contrary to all probability. If his guess had not been realized, what would have become of him, and how would he have been disgraced in his character of prophet? What is more, he not only promised deliverance, but also foretold to him who scoffed at his promise: “Thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof,” and the threat was fulfilled. The promise and the threat of the prophet form together the central point of the story; they are not mere incidental details, as is clear from the express repetition at the close. The truth of the occurrence, which no one doubts, stands or falls with both together. The object of the story is, to show that there is a prophet in Israel (2 Kings 5:8), so that it appears, to say the least, very insipid to hold, with Kφster, that “the moral of the story is: God can save by the most unexpected means, but the unbeliever has no share in such salvation.” [2 Kings 5:8 cannot, with any justice, be cited as bearing upon the significance of this story. Its lesson is one much more nearly touching the “historical development of the plan of redemption” than chap. 5. It was important that all should know that there were prophets of God in Israel, only to the end that they might believe what follows from this fact, viz., that God has a plan for the redemption of the world in which the Israelitish nation plays a prominent part: that He, therefore, is especially present among them by His prophets, and that their history and fortunes, their calamities and chastisements, their mercies and deliverances, are interpositions of God for the furtherance of His plan. The point of the incident before us is, that God would interpose to arrest a national calamity at the very crisis of its fulfilment, for the instruction, warning, and conversion of His people.—W. G. S.] 7. King Jehoram presents himself, in both narratives, just as he was described above (p. 34). He does not persecute the prophet; he rather listens to his counsel, and addresses him as “father” (2 Kings 6:9; 2 Kings 6:21); but he never places himself decidedly on his side. “He stands an example of those who often permit themselves to be led, in their worldly affairs, by holy men, who admire them from a distance, who suspect the presence of a higher strength in them, but still hold them aloof and persist in their own ways” (Von Gerlach). When the prophet leads the enemy into his hands without a blow, he becomes violent, and is eager to slaughter them all; then, however, he allows himself to be soothed, gives them entertainment, and permits them to depart in safety. At the siege of Samaria, the great distress of the city touches his heart. He puts on garments which are significant of grief and repentance, but then allows himself to be so overpowered by anger that, instead of seeking the cause of the prevailing misery in his own apostasy and that of the nation, he swears to put to death, without delay, the man [who had endeavored to fix his attention upon the true cause of the calamity, and] whom he had once addressed as “father.” Yet this anger is also of short duration. He repents of his oath, and hastens to prevent the murder, and asks Elisha, trembling and despairing, if there is no further hope. He does not hear the promise of deliverance with scorn, as his officer does, but with hope and confidence. Then again, when the promised deliverance is announced as actually present, he once more becomes doubtful and mistrustful, and his servants have to encourage him, and push him on to a decision. Thus, at one moment elated, at another depressed, now good-natured and now hard and cruel, now angry and again despairing, now trustful and again distrustful, he never rises above a character of indecision, changeableness, and contrasted dispositions. He was indeed better than his father Ahab, but he was still a true son of this father (see 1 Kings 18, Hist. § 6). In one thing only he was firm: “He cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin; he departed not therefrom” (2 Kings 3:3). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ D.—The Influence of Elisha with the King, and his Residence at Samaria2 Kings 8:1-151 Then spake [Now] Elisha [had spoken] unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for the Lord hath called for [up] a famine; and it shall also come upon the land seven years. 2And the woman arose, and did after the saying of the man of God: and she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years. 3And it came to pass at the seven years’ end, that the woman returned out of the land of the Philistines: and she went forth to cry unto the king for her house and for her land. 4And the king talked [was just then talking] with Gehazi the servant of the man of God, saying, Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done. 5And it came to pass, as he was telling the king how he had restored a dead body to life, that, behold, the woman, whose son he had restored to life, cried to the king for her house and for her land. And Gehazi said, My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son whom Elisha restored to life. 6And when the king asked the woman, she told him. So the king appointed unto her a certain officer, saying, Restore all that was hers, and all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now. 7And Elisha came to Damascus: and Benhadad the king of Syria was sick; and it was told him, saying, The man of God is come hither. 8And the king said unto Hazael, Take a present in thine hand, and go, meet the man of God, and inquire of the Lord by him, saying, Shall I recover of this disease? 9So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him, even of [and—omit even of] every good thing of Damascus, forty camels’ burden, and came and stood before him, and said, Thy son, Benhadad king of Syria hath sent me to thee, saying, Shall I recover of this disease? 10And Elisha said unto him, Go, say unto [tell] him [then], Thou mayst [shalt] certainly recover [live]: howbeit the Lord hath 11shewed, me that he shall surely die. And he [Elisha] settled his countenance [, and gazed] steadfastly [at him], until he was ashamed [became confused]: and the man of God wept. 12And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children [in pieces], and rip up their women with child. 13And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, [What is then thy servant, the dog,] that he should do this great thing? And Elisha answered, The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be [let me see thee] king over Syria. 14So he departed from Elisha, and came to his master; who said to him, What said Elisha to thee? And he answered, He told me [:] that [omit that] Thou shouldest [shalt] surely recover [live]. 15And it came to pass on the morrow, that he [Hazael] took a thick cloth [the blanket], and dipped it in [the] water, and spread it on his face, so that he died: and Hazael reigned in his stead. AND 2 Kings 8:1. Then spake Elisha, &c., or, as it should read, Elisha had spoken; for what is told in 2 Kings 8:2 took place long before the incident which is narrated in the 3d and following verses, and forms only the necessary introduction. The famine of four years’ duration is doubtless the same which is mentioned 2 Kings 4:38. The years in which it falls among the twelve of Jehoram, it is impossible to fix. The advice which the prophet gave the woman to go into a foreign land, must have been founded upon peculiar grounds, since she did not belong to the poorer classes (2 Kings 8:6 and 2 Kings 4:8 sq.). Perhaps she had become a widow, as some suppose, and had lost, in her husband, her chief reliance in a time of distress. She chose the land of the Philistines as her residence, probably because it was near, and because the plains on the sea-coast did not suffer so much from scarcity as the mountainous country of Israel (Thenius). On her return, the woman found her property in the hands of strangers. We may suppose that it had been taken possession of, either by the royal treasury, as property which the owner had abandoned (Grotius, Clericus, and others), or by individuals, who had illegally established themselves in the possession of it, and who were not willing now to surrender it. She appeals, therefore, to the chief judge, the king. 2 Kings 8:4. And the king talked with Gehazi, &c. Piscator, Sebast. Smith, Keil, and others, have felt compelled to assign this incident to a time previous to the healing of Naaman, because it is said (2 Kings 5:27) that Gehazi and all his posterity were, from that time on, to be lepers, but here we find the king conversing with him. In general, there is no objection to this, for it is very doubtful if the narrative of the acts of Elisha presents them to us in their chronological order (see above. p. 45). The principal ground for this opinion, viz., Gehazi’s leprosy, has not compulsory force, for, although lepers were obliged to remain outside the city (2 Kings 7:3, and the places there cited), yet it was not forbidden to talk with them (Matthew 8:2; Luke 17:12). Naaman, the leper, was admitted to the palace of the king (2 Kings 8:6), and, at a later time, such persons were not excluded even from attendance in the synagogues (Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s. 117). Gerlach thinks that the king could the more probably meet with Gehazi, for the very reason that the latter had not been for a long time in Elisha’s service. Jarchi and some of the other rabbis declare that the four lepers (2 Kings 7:3) were Gehazi and his sons, but this is a purely arbitrary and unfounded notion. They were led to it probably by the desire of bringing the present incident into some connection with the preceding. Menzel also brings the story, 2 Kings 8:1-6, into connection with that in chap. 7. by saying: “Great fear of the prophet took possession of the king from that time on” (i.e., from the death of the scoffer—2 Kings 7:20—which Elisha had predicted). However, if this had been the ground of his interview with Gehazi, the story would certainly have had a different introduction from that in 2 Kings 8:1-3. It is no cause for wonder that the king did not ask Elisha himself in regard to his acts, but obtained a recital of them from Gehazi. As he had been himself a witness of so many of the prophet’s acts, he was now curious to hear, from a reliable source, about those acts which Elisha had done quietly, in the narrow circle of his intimate associates, and in regard to which so many unreliable reports circulated among the people. To whom could he apply with more propriety for this information than to one who had formerly been the prophet’s familiar servant? Among these acts the restoration of the Shunammite’s son to life was the most important. By ρψιν, 2 Kings 8:6, we must understand a high officer of the court, not necessarily a eunuch (cf. 1 Kings 22:9). ϊְּ ?αεּ ?ΰָ ?δ can hardly mean the rent; it is rather the produce in kind, which must have been restored to her out of the royal stores. 2 Kings 8:7. And Elisha came to Damascus, &c.: not into the city of Damascus, as is often assumed, for Hazael came out with camels to meet him (2 Kings 8:9), so that the most it can mean is that he came into the neighborhood of the city. Perhaps the name Damascus stands for the whole province, as Samaria did. Keil, who follows the old expositors, thinks that Elisha clearly went thither “with the intention of executing the commission which had been laid upon Elisha at Horeb (1 Kings 19:15) to appoint Hazael to be king of Syria,” but so important an object to the journey must have been specified in some way. To pass over the objection that that commission was given to Elijah and not to Elisha, and that there is nowhere any mention of its having been transferred to the latter, we observe that the prophet does not say here (2 Kings 8:12): Jehovah has commanded me to anoint, or appoint, thee, Hazael, king of Syria, but: He has made me see that thou wilt be king of Syria, and that thou wilt do much evil to Israel. According to Ewald, Elisha went into voluntary exile for a time, on account of a disagreement between himself and Jehoram, who still tolerated idolatry, but the text does not say anything of this, and we are not compelled to assume anything of the kind. The prophet was already known and highly esteemed in Syria, as we see from the entire narrative, especially from 2 Kings 8:7-8. He might very well, therefore, even without any especial ground, extend the journeys, which he made in the pursuit of his prophetical calling (2 Kings 4:9), as far as Damascus. We may, nevertheless, suppose that it was done “by the instigation of the Spirit” (Thenius). The revelation, of which he speaks in 2 Kings 8:10; 2 Kings 8:13, he certainly did not receive until after his arrival in Syria. It was not the occasion of his journey thither. 2 Kings 8:8. And the king said unto Hazael, &c. Josephus calls Hazael ὁ πιστότατοςτῶνοἰκετῶν: perhaps he was also commander-in-chief of the army (2 Kings 8:12). There is a tacit request in the question of Benhadad that the prophet would obtain his restoration to health, from Jehovah, by prayer. He who wished to consult a man of God did not come with empty hands (1 Samuel 9:7; 1 Kings 14:3). The εְ before λָ ?μ, 2 Kings 8:9, is hardly explanatory: “and in truth” (Keil); it is rather the simple conjunctive (Thenius). The messenger had a “gift in his hand,” and besides there were all kinds of other valuable articles and products from Damascus, which were carried by forty camels. A camel-load is reckoned at from 500 to 800 pounds, but it would be wrong to reckon the weight of these gifts accordingly at 20,000 to 32,000 pounds (Dereser). “The incident is rather to be estimated by the oriental custom of giving the separate parts of a gift to as many servants, or loading them upon as many animals as possible, so as to make the grandest possible display of it. Harmar, Beobb., ii. s. 29. Rosenmόller, Morgenland, iii. s. 17.” (Keil). “Fifty persons often carry what a single one could very well carry” (Chardin, Voyage, iii. p. 217). Nevertheless, the gifts were very important, and we see from their value in how great esteem Elisha stood among the Syrians. If he refused to accept any gift whatsoever at the healing of Naaman (2 Kings 5:16), far less is it likely that he accepted these grand gifts in this case, where he had to bewail the misfortunes of his country (2 Kings 8:11-12). 2 Kings 8:10. And Elisha said unto him, &c. The keri gives μεֹ instead of μֹ ?ΰ after ΰֱ ?ξָ ?ψ, and the Massoretes reckon this among the fifteen places in the Old Testament where μֹ ?ΰ is a pronoun, and not the negative particle. All the old translations, and some manuscripts also, present the keri. No one of the modern expositors but Keil has adopted μֹ ?ΰ, non; he accepts that reading as “the more difficult.” He rejects the makkeph between ΰξψ and μΰ, joins μΰ with the following word ηָ ?ιֹ ?δ, and translates: “Thou shalt not live, and (for) Jehovah hath shown me that he will die.” But εְ never means for, as it would here, if this interpretation were correct. It rather means here but, as it so often does, so that the sentence which begins with it forms a contrast to the one which precedes. This tells strongly against the chetib μֹ ?ΰ. A further consideration is that the infinitive before the verb (ηָ ?ιֹ ?δϊִ ?ηְ ?ιֶ ?δ) always serves to strengthen the verbal idea (Gesen., Gramm., § 131, 2, a), and that, in this construction, the negative stands before the finite verb and not before the infinitive, cf. Judges 15:13 (Ew., Lehrb., § 312, b). μֹ ?ΰ cannot, therefore, be connected with ηָ ?ιֹ ?δ. Still less can it be taken as a negative with ΰξψ, for Hazael says, 2 Kings 8:14 : “He (the prophet) told me: ‘Thou shalt surely recover.’ ” This, therefore, was the answer of Elisha, which Hazael (suppressing the other words of the prophet) brought to the king; an answer such as the latter was eager to receive. If there is any case where the keri is to be preferred to the chetib, this is one. Nearly all the expositors, accordingly, agree in reading μεֹ, but their interpretations differ. Some translate, apparently with literalness: “Tell him:—Thou shalt recover;—but God hath shown me that he shall die,” and they suppose, accordingly, that Elisha consciously commissioned Hazael with a falsehood, either because he did not wish to terrify or sadden the king, that is, out of compassion (Theodoret, Josephus), or, because it was generally held to be allowable to deceive foreign enemies and idolaters (Grotius). Neither the one nor the other, however, is consistent with the dignity and character of the prophet, who here speaks in the name of Jehovah. It is impossible that the narrator, who only aims to advance the glory of the prophet, in all his stories about him, should have connected with his words a sense which would have made Elisha a liar. Other expositors, therefore, explain it thus: “Of thy illness thou shalt not die, it is not unto death;” but that he then added, for Hazael: “the king will lose his life in another way” (i.e., violently). Clericus (following Kimchi), J. D. Michaelis, Hess, Maurer, Von Gerlach, and others, agree in this interpretation. The form ηָ ?εֹ ?δϊִ ?ηְ ?ιֶ ?δ in the first member of the sentence, to which ξεֹ ?ϊιָ ?ξεּ ?ϊ in the second member corresponds, is a bar to this interpretation. The infinitive strengthens the verbal idea in both cases. It cannot serve with ϊִ ?ηְ ?ιֶ ?δ to tone down the verb (“as far as this illness is concerned, thou mayest preserve thy life”), and with ιָ ?ξεּ ?ϊ to strengthen it. We must, therefore, translate: “Thou shalt surely live,” and: “He shall surely die.” Then the words can have no other sense than that which Vitringa has established in his thorough discussion of the verse (Observatt. Sac., i. 3, 16, pages 716–728): Vade et dic modo (κατ’ ἐπιτροπήν) ipsi: Vivendo vives; Deus tamen mihi ostendit, illum certe moriturum esse. So, likewise, Thenius: “Just tell him (as thou, in thy capacity of courtier, and according to thy character, wilt surely do): ‘Thou shalt surely recover;’ yet Jehovah hath revealed to me that he shall surely die” (cf. Roos, Fuszstapfen des Glaubens Abrahams, s. 831). [This exposition of the grammatical sense of the words is undoubtedly correct, but there is room for some scruple about the interpretation. Elisha seems to encourage the courtier to flatter the king with a delusive hope. This could at best be only a sneer, or irony. A clue to a better interpretation is given above. Note that the question is: “Shall I recover of this disease?” The answer seems to be measured accurately, and strictly to fit this question: “Go, say to him: Thou shalt surely live.” That is the answer to the question asked, and the infinitive has its full force. Thus the prophet promises a recovery from the illness. At the same time he sees farther, and sees that though the illness is not fatal, other dangers threaten Benhadad. He need not declare this, and in his categorical answer to the king he does not, but in an aside he does: “Nevertheless, Jehovah hath shown me that he shall surely die,” i.e., not of the disease, but by violence.—W. G. S.] Elisha, by his prophetical insight, had seen through the treacherous Hazael, just as he once saw through the plans of Benhadad (2 Kings 6:12), and he now showed him that he knew the secret purpose which he cherished in his heart. He gave him to understand this, not only by his words, but also by the circumstance which is added in 2 Kings 8:11 : “And he fixed his countenance steadfastly until he (Elisha) shamed him (Hazael),” i.e., he fixed his eyes steadily and sharply upon him, so that the piercing look produced embarrassment and made Hazael’s countenance fall. This detail is consistent with the above interpretation of 2 Kings 8:10 and with no other. [“Jehovah hath shown me that he shall surely die,” says the prophet, and fixes his eyes upon the ambitious and treacherous courtier, who has already conceived the idea of murdering his master, until the guilty conscience of the latter makes him shrink from the scrutiny.—W. G. S.] The Sept. give a purely arbitrary rendering of 2 Kings 8:11, thus: καὶ ἐστη ’Αζαὴλκατὰ πρόςωποναὐτοῦ, καὶ παρέθηκενἐνώπιοναὐτοῦ τὰ δῶραἕωςᾐσχύνετο. The only possible subject of εַ ?ιַּ ?ςֲ ?ξֵ ?γ is Elisha, and the text says nothing about the presentation of the gifts. ςַ ?γΞαּ ?ωׁ does not mean either: “remarkably long” (Ewald), nor: “In a (taking the words strictly) shameless manner” (Thenius), cf. on 2 Kings 2:17. The man of God did not weep for Benhadad, nor for Hazael, but for his own countrymen, on account of the judgments which should be inflicted upon them by the hand of Hazael, as he himself declares in 2 Kings 8:12. 2 Kings 8:12. And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? The particular statements in Elisha’s reply must not be taken too strictly in their literal meaning. He only means to say: Thou wilt commit in Israel all the cruelties which are wont to be practised in the bitterest wars (see Hosea 10:14; Hosea 13:16; Isaiah 13:15 sq.; Nahum 3:10 sq.; Psalms 137:9; Amos 1:13 sq.). How this was fulfilled we see in chap 2 Kings 10:32 sq.; 2 Kings 13:3-4; 2 Kings 13:7; 2 Kings 13:22. In the 13th verse, where the proud Hazael, high in office, and already plotting to reach the throne, calls himself “thy servant, the dog,” he commits an extravagance which, in itself, shows us that he was not in earnest, and that his humility was hypocritical and false. “Dog” is the most contemptuous epithet of abuse, 1 Samuel 24:14; 2 Samuel 16:9 (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 517). Elisha now declares openly to the hypocrite that which, in 2 Kings 8:10-11, by word and look, he had only hinted at: “Jehovah hath shown thee to me as king of Syria,” i.e., I know what thou aimest at, and also what thou wilt become. The words by no means involve a solemn prophetical institution or consecration (anointing) to be king, such as, for instance, occurs in 2 Kings 9:3; 2 Kings 9:6, but they are a simple prediction (which, at the same time, probes Hazael’s conscience) of that which should come to pass. He means to say: As God has revealed to me Benhadad’s death, so has he also revealed to me thy elevation to the throne. Hazael, therefore, startled by the revelation of his secret plans, makes no reply to the earnest words of the prophet, but turns away. 2 Kings 8:14. So he departed from Elisha, &c. Hazael makes the very reply to his master which the prophet had predicted that he would (2 Kings 8:10). and we see from the words ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψμִ ?ιεβε still more clearly, that we must read μεֹ for μֹ ?ΰ in 2 Kings 8:10. In the 15th verse εַ ?ιִּ ?χַּ ?η cannot have any other subject than the three verbs which precede, ειαΰ ,ειμκ, and ειΰξψ. It is not, therefore, Benhadad (Luther, Schulz, and others), but Hazael. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the entire context that Benhadad himself, in order to refresh himself, should have laid a cloth, dipped in water, upon his face, and then should have died from the effects of the repressed perspiration. ξַ ?λְ ?αֵּ ?ψ means, primarily, something woven, a woven fabric, but it is not a fly-guard (Michaelis, Hess, and others), nor a bath-blanket or quilt (Ewald); but a woven, and hence thick and heavy, coverlet (Sept. στρῶμα); the bed-coverlet. This, when dipped in water, became so heavy that, when spread over his face, it prevented his breathing, and so either produced suffocation, as most understand it, or brought on apoplexy, as Thenius suggests. Clericus correctly states the reason why Hazael chose just this form of murder: ut hominem facilius Suffocaret, ne vi interemtus videret. He would have the less opposition to fear, in mounting the throne, as he intended, if Benhadad appeared to have died a natural death. We have not, therefore, to think of strangulation, which Josephus states was here employed (τὸνμὲνστραγγάλῃ διέφθειρε). Philippson remarks that, in cases of violent fever, it is the custom in the Orient, according to Bruce, to pour cold water over the bed, and that this bold treatment was perhaps tried in the case of Benhadad, but with unfortunate results. This, however, is not at all probable. We may feel confident that no one will ever succeed in clearing Hazael from the crime of regicide, however much some have tried it. Ewald (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, iii. s. 522 [3e Ausg. s. 561]), narrates the occurrence thus: “As the king was about to take his bath (?), his servant (?), we cannot now tell more precisely from what particular motive, dipped the bathing-blanket (?) in the warm (?) water, and drew it, before the king could call for help, so tightly together (?) over his head, that he was smothered.” Every one sees that the text says nothing of all that. [It is unnatural, of course, to introduce a new subject for ειχη. Also, it is not likely that the king committed suicide the day after he had shown so much anxiety about his life. Hazael alone remains, and so we translate. But Ewald refers the case to the usage in which an indefinite subject, one (Germ. man), must be supplied, § 294, b. He furthermore points to the article in δξλαψ, which refers to some well-known object, he thinks to a bath-blanket. This, then, would identify the subject as the servant who was assisting him in the bath. Again, Ewald observes that if Hazael were the subject he would not be mentioned again immediately afterwards (Geschichte, ed. iii. vol. III. s. 562 n. 2). These considerations are not, perhaps, strong enough to support the inferences which he draws from them, but they certainly are not contemptible.—W. G. S.] AND ETHICAL1. This passage is not by any means arbitrarily inserted here in the course of the history of the kings. It stands in close and intelligent connection with what precedes and what follows. The first incident (2 Kings 8:1-6) is not intended simply to prove “how God, by overruling slight circumstances, often brings about great blessings” (Kφster); neither can it properly be entitled: “The Seven-year Famine,” or “The Restoration of the Shunammite’s Property.” It is rather intended to show the high estimation in which the king held the prophet. The king had been a witness of very many acts of Elisha, which forced from him a recognition of the prophet’s worth. In order to arrive at a still more complete estimate of him, he desires to learn from a reliable source all the great and extraordinary works which Elisha had accomplished, and of which he had already perhaps heard something by public rumor. He therefore applies to Gehazi for this information. While Gehazi was telling the story of the Shunammite, she herself came in and was able to ratify what he narrated. The king was so much carried away by the story, and by this marvellous meeting with the woman herself, that he, for the sake of the prophet, restored to her the property she had lost, and even added more than she ever could have expected. This story, therefore, shows us the effect which the acts of Elisha had had upon the king, and is perfectly in place here. Moreover, it forms the connection with what follows. In spite of all his recognition of Elisha as a prophet, still Jehoram “cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam and departed not therefrom” (2 Kings 3:3). He still tolerated the disgraceful idolatrous worship in Israel, so that, before his end, Jehu could retort upon him: “What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?” (2 Kings 9:22). Therefore it was that the storm-clouds of divine judgment, which were to bring ruin to him, and to the entire house of Ahab, were already collecting. This judgment came from two directions, as the oracle 1 Kings 19:15 sq. (see Exeg. notes thereon) had already predicted that it would come, both from without and from within; foreign invasion from Syria by Hazael, and domestic rebellion by Jehu. The second narrative above concerns Hazael; chap. 9. treats of Jehu. The main point in the second narrative (2 Kings 8:7-15) is the announcement of the divine judgment which is to fall upon Israel by the hand of Hazael (2 Kings 8:11-13). All the rest, both what precedes and what follows, is only introduction to this, or development of it. As God’s prophet in Israel (2 Kings 5:8), Elisha had the painful task, which he performed with tears, of designating in advance the usurper Hazael as the one through whom the divine judgment should be inflicted, “in order that Israel might thereafter know all the more surely that Jehovah had prepared this chastisement, and that it was His hand which laid this scourge upon apostates” (Krummacher). [As the whole series of incidents, of which this is one, is told in order to show the greatness of the prophet, so it seems more consistent to see the aim of this one in the intention to show that Elisha foreknew and foretold Hazael’s crime and usurpation, and the misery which he inflicted upon Israel.—W. G. S.] 2. The first narrative (2 Kings 8:1-6) contains, besides the chief point, which has already been specified, a series of incidents which form a marvellous web of divine dispensations. The restoration of the Shunammite’s property, with which it ends, is connected by a chain of intervening incidents with the famine predicted by the prophet, with which it begins. The restoration of the property presupposes its loss; this the temporary absence from the country; that took place by the advice of the prophet, and this advice was founded upon the scarcity which God had inflicted as a punishment, and which He had revealed beforehand to the prophet. It was especially the marvellous, divinely ordered, meeting of the Shunammite and Gehazi in the presence of the king, which influenced the latter to his unexpected decision. This meeting was, for the king, a seal to the story of Gehazi, and for the Shunammite a seal upon her faith and trust in the prophet. Once she declined any intercession of the prophet with the king on her behalf (chap, 2 Kings 4:13); now she found that she received help, for the prophet’s sake, even without his immediate interference. Krummacher: “God does not always help by startling miracles, although His hands are not tied from even these. More frequently His deliverances are disguised in the more or less transparent veil of ordinary occurrences, nay, even of accidents. This and that takes place, which at the time we hardly consider worthy of notice; but let us wait until these slight providential incidents are all collected together, and the last thread is woven into the artistic web.” 3. What is here told us about king Jehoram presents him to us from his better side. His desire to learn all of Elisha’s acts, still more the way in which he was ready at once to help the distressed Shunammite to the recovery of her property, testify to a receptivity for elevated impressions, and to a disposition to yield to them. By the fact that he recognized all that was extraordinary in the person of the prophet, and yet that he did not desist from his false line of conduct, he showed that, in the main point, the relation of himself and of his people to Jehovah, nothing good could any longer be expected of him. His better feelings were transitory and, on a broad and general survey, in effectual. He continued to be a reed, swayed hither and thither by the wind, easily moved, but undecided and unreliable, so that finally, when all the warnings and exhortations of the prophet had produced no effect, he fell under the just and inevitable judgment of God. 4. The second narrative (2 Kings 8:7-15) relates, it is true, the fulfilment of the oracle in 1 Kings 19:15, but it shows, at the same time, that that oracle cannot be understood in its literal sense (see the Exeg. notes on that passage), for it is historically established here that Hazael, who now appears for the first time in the history, was not anointed king of Syria by either Elijah or Elisha, though he does appear as the divinely-appointed executor of the judgments which God had decreed against Israel. Jehovah “shows” him as such to the prophet, and the latter, far from seeking him in Damascus and anointing him, or even saluting him, as king, gives the usurper, who comes to meet him with presents and hypocritical humility, to understand, both by his manner and his words, that he sees his treacherous plans, and he tells him, with tears, what God had revealed, that he should be the great enemy and oppressor of Israel. Thereupon Hazael departs, startled and embarrassed, without a word. This is the clear story of the incident as this narration presents it to us. There is no room, therefore, for any supposition that Hazael was anointed by the prophet. On the other hand, it is an entire mistake, on the part of some of the modern historians, to see in the conduct of Elisha only the “enmity of the prophets of Jehovah” towards Jehoram and his dynasty, and to make Elisha a liar and a traitor, as Duncker (Geschichte des Alterthums, i. s. 413) does, when he says: “At a later time [after the siege of Samaria by Benhadad, chap. 6. Elisha spent some time among the enemies of his country, in Damascus. Here Benhadad was slain by one of his servants, Hazael, at the instigation of Elisha. Hazael then mounted the throne of Damascus and renewed the war against Israel, not without encouragement from Elisha.” In like manner Weber (Gesch. des Volkes Israel’s, 236) remarks: “This opportunity [the illness of Benhadad] appears to have been taken advantage of by the prophet to bring about a palace revolution, as a result of which the king of Damascus was murdered on his sick-bed, by means of a fly-net (?).” Such misrepresentation of history can only be explained by the neglect or ignorance of the Hebrew text. When will people cease to make modern revolutionary agitators of the ancient prophets? According to Kφster (Die Proph., s. 94) the sense of the entire story is this: “A prophet may not allow himself to be restrained from proclaiming the word of Jehovah, by the possibility of evil or crime which may result from it.” This thought, which is, at best, a very common-place one, and which might have been presented more strikingly and precisely in a hundred other ways, is entirely foreign to the story before us. 5. The prophet Elisha appears, in this second narrative, in a very brilliant light. As he had forced recognition of his own worth from the king of Israel, so he had attained to high esteem with the king of Syria. The rude, proud, and unsubmissive Benhadad, the arch-enemy of Israel, whose undertakings Elisha had often frustrated, who had once sent an armed detachment to capture him, shows him, as soon as he hears of his presence in his country, the highest honors. He sends out his highest officer with grand gifts to meet him, calls himself humbly his son, and sends a request to him that he will pray to God on his behalf. This in itself overthrows the notion that “Elisha’s celebrated skill in medicine” (Weber) led the king to this step. We are not told what produced this entire change in Benhadad’s disposition; but it is, at any rate, a strong proof of the mighty influence which Elisha must have exerted, both by word and deed, that he was held in so high esteem even in Syria, and that Benhadad himself bent before him. This reception, which he met with in a foreign land, was also a warning sign for Israel. He stands before us, high in worth and dignity in this occurrence also, both as man of God and prophet. He does not feel himself flattered by the high honors which are conferred upon him. They influence him as little as the rich gifts, which he does not even accept. At the sight of the man who, according to the purpose of God, was to be the scourge of his people, he is carried away by such grief that he, as our Lord once did, at the sight of Jerusalem moving on to its destruction, burst into tears for the people who did not consider those things “which belonged to their peace.” How any one can form the suspicion, under such circumstances, that Elisha stood in secret collusion with Hazael, to whose conscience he addresses such sharp reproofs, or can say: “Hazael at once commenced a war upon Israel, instigated by Elisha” (Weber), it is hard to understand. 6. This narrative leaves no room for doubt as to Hazael’s character, and especially is that labor thrown away which is spent upon the attempt to acquit him of the murder of Benhadad, or to represent his guilt at least as uncertain, for εַ ?ιָּ ?ξֹ ?ϊ, which follows the words: He (Hazael) “spread it on his face,” means, so that he died, as in 1 Samuel 25:38; 1 Kings 2:46; 2 Kings 12:21. At heart proud, haughty, and imperious, he affects humility and submissiveness; towards his master, who had entrusted him with the most important commission, he is false and treacherous. He shrinks from no means to attain his object. He lies and deceives, but, at the same time, he is cunning and crafty, and knows how to conceal his traitorous purposes. When, alarmed and exposed by the words of the prophet, he can no longer keep them secret, he marches on to the crime, although he seeks to execute it in such a way that he may not appear to be guilty. With all this he combines energy, courage, cruelty, and a blind hatred against Israel, as the sequel shows. On account of these qualities, he was well fitted to be, in the hand of God, a rod of anger and a staff of indignation (Isaiah 10:5). “The Lord makes the vessels of wrath serviceable for the purpose of His government” (Krummacher), and here we have again, as often in the history of redemption, an example of wickedness punished by wickedness, and of godless men made, without their will or knowledge, instruments of holiness and justice (see above, 1 Kings 22. Hist. § 6). AND 2 Kings 8:1-6. King Jehoram and the Shunammite. (a) The marvellous meeting of the two (the inscrutable and yet wise and gracious orderings of God, Isaiah 28:29; Isaiah 55:8-9); (b) the restoration of the property believed to be lost (a proof of the truth of Pro 21:1; and Psalms 146:7; Psalms 146:9; therefore, Psalms 37:5). 2 Kings 8:1-3. Krummacher: Famine, pest, war, and all other forms of calamity, form an army which is subject to the command of God, which comes and goes at His command, which is ready to attack or ready to retire as He may order, and which can assail no one without command. They are sometimes commissioned to punish, and to be the agents of the divine justice, sometimes to arouse and to bring back the intoxicated to sobriety, sometimes to embitter the world to sinners, and push them to the throne of grace, and sometimes to try the saints, and light the purifying fires about them.… So no man has to do simply with the sufferings which fall upon him, but, before all, with Him who inflicted them.—Seiler: It is not a rare thing for God to lead even a large number of persons at the same time away from a certain place, where some calamity would have befallen them with others. Do not abandon thy fatherland without being certain of the call of God: “Arise! Go,” &c, as Abraham was (Genesis 12:1). Faith clings to the words in Psalms 37:18-19. It is the holy duty and the noblest task of human government to help the oppressed, to secure justice for orphans, and to help the cause of the widow (Isaiah 1:17; Psalms 82:3). 2 Kings 8:4-6. The King’s Consultation with Gehazi. (a) The motive of it; (b) the effect of it. 2 Kings 8:4. Osiander: That is the way with many great men; they like to hear of the deeds and discourses of pious teachers, and even admire them, but will not be improved by them (Mark 6:20; Acts 24:24 sq.; Acts 25:22; Acts 26:28).—Krummacher: People are not wanting even now-a-days who, although they are strangers to the life which has its source in God, nevertheless have a feeling of interest and enthusiasm for the miraculous contents of the text. They read such portions of Scripture with delight.… Even a certain warmth of feeling is not wanting. What, however, is totally wanting, is the broken and contrite spirit, the character of a poor and helpless sinner. 2 Kings 8:5. That the word which has been heard may not fall by the wayside, but take root in the heart, God, in His mercy, often causes special occurrences to take place immediately afterwards which bear testimony to the truth of the word. 2 Kings 8:6. For the sake of the prophet the Shunammite was helped out of her misfortune, and reinstated in the possession of her property. The Lord never forgets the kindnesses which are shown to a prophet in the name of a prophet (Matthew 10:41); He repays them not once but many times (2 Kings 4:8-10). The word of God often extorts from an unconverted man a good and noble action, which, however, if it only proceeds from a sudden emotion, and stands alone, resembles a flower, which blooms in the morning, and in the evening fades and dies. True servants of God, like Elisha, are often fountains of great blessing, without their own immediate participation or knowledge. 2 Kings 8:7-15. Elisha in Syria, (a) Benhadad’s mission to him; (b) the meeting with Hazael; (c) the announcement of the judgments upon Israel. 2 Kings 8:7-8. Benhadad upon the Sick-bed. (a) The rebellious, haughty, and mighty king, the arch-enemy of Israel, who had never troubled himself about the living God, lies in wretchedness; he has lost courage, and now he seeks the prophet whom he once wished to capture, just as a servant seeks his master. The Lord can, with his hammer, which breaketh in pieces even the flinty rock, also make tender the hearts of men (Isaiah 26:16). Those who are the most self-willed in prosperity are often the most despairing in misfortune. Not until the end approaches do they seek God; but He cannot help in death those who in life have never thought of Him. (b) He does not send to ask the prophet: What shall I, poor sinner, do that I may find grace and be saved? but only whether he shall recover his health. (Starke: The children of this world are only anxious for bodily welfare; about eternal welfare they are indifferent.) It should be our first care in severe illness to set our house in order, and to surrender ourselves to the will of God, so that we may truthfully say with the apostle: “For whether we live,” &c. (Romans 14:8). The time and the hour of death are concealed from men, and it is vain to inquire about them. 2 Kings 8:7. The man of God is come! That was the cry in the heathen city of Damascus, and the news penetrated even to the king, who rejoiced to hear it. This did not occur to Elisha in any city of Israel, Luke 4:24 sq. (John 1:11; Acts 18:6). Blessed is the city and the country where there is rejoicing that a man of God is come! 2 Kings 8:9-11. So much the times may change! He who once was despised, hated, and persecuted, is now met with royal honors and rich presents; but the one makes him uncertain and wavering just as little as the other. The testimonials of honor, and the praise of the great and mighty, the rich and those of high station, are often a much more severe temptation to waver for the messengers of the word of God, than persecution and shame. To be a true man of God is not consistent with vanity and self-satisfaction. The faithful messenger delivers his message without respect of persons, in season and out of season (2 Timothy 4:2). He who seeks for the honor which cometh only from God (John 5:44), will not let himself be blinded by honor before men (Acts 14:14; Sir 20:31). 2 Kings 8:10. However well a man may know how to conceal his secret thoughts and wicked plans, there is One who sees them, even long before they are put in operation; from whom the darkness hideth not, and for whom the night shineth as the day (Psalms 139:2-12). He will sooner or later bring to light what is hidden in darkness, and reveal the secret counsel of the heart (1 Corinthians 4:5). 2 Kings 8:11. He who has a good conscience is never disturbed or embarrassed if any one looks him directly in the eye; but a bad conscience cannot endure an open, firm look, and trembles with terror at every rustling leaf. 2 Kings 8:11-12. Elisha weeps. These were not tears of sentiment, but of the deepest pain, worthy of a man of God, who knows of no greater evil than the apostasy of his people from the living God, the determined contempt for the divine word, and the rejection of the divine grace. Where are the men who now-a-days weep such tears? They were also tears of the most faithful love, which is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, vaunteth not itself, and is not puffed up. So our Lard wept once over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41), and St. Paul over Israel (Romans 9:1-3). 2 Kings 8:13. Subserviency before men is always joined with falseness and hypocrisy. Therefore trust no one who is more than humble and modest. Hazael called himself a dog, while he plotted in his heart to become king of a great people.—Cramer: It is the way with all hypocrites that they bend and cringe, and humble themselves, and conceal their tricks, until they perceive their opportunity, and have found the key of the situation (2 Samuel 15:6).—Krummacher: There is scarcely anything more discordant and disgusting than the dialect of self-abasement, when it bears upon its face the stamp of affectation and falsehood. 2 Kings 8:14-15. It is the curse which rests upon him who has sold himself to sin, that all which ought to awaken his conscience, and terrify and shock him out of his security, only makes him more obstinate, and pushes him on to carry out his evil designs (cf. John 13:21-30). 2 Kings 8:15. The Lord abhorreth the bloody and deceitful man (Psalms 5:7). He who, by treason and murder, ascends a throne, is no king by the grace of God, but only a rod of wrath in the hands of God, which is broken in pieces when it has served its purpose. Footnotes: 2 Kings 8:6.—[The Masoretes write δ in ςζαδ as suffix without mappik, of which other examples occur (cf. 1 Kings 14; Isaiah 23:17). It might be punctuated as a perfect ςָֽ ?ζְ ?αָֽ ?δ. Ew. 247, d. and nt. 2.—Bφttcher (§ 418, c) accounts for the omission of mappik by the accumulation of guttural and hissing letters: ς ,ζ ,ΰ. 2 Kings 8:10.—[I. e., give him that delusive hope, since he longs for it, and you, as a courtier, desire to gratify him. This is adopting the keri μεֹ. See Exeget. 2 Kings 8:13.—[λּ ?ι has the force of then. What then is thy servant, the dog, that, &c. The English translators rendered the sentence as if it were the same use of language as in 1 Samuel 17:43; 2 Samuel 3:8, but it is quite the contrary. Hazael calls himself a dog and asks how he can do great deeds. Goliath and Abner resent being treated as if they were contemptible, which they do not admit. ξָ ?δ, even when it refers to persons, asks, not who? but what? i.e., what kind of one? (Bφttcher. § 899. ζ.)—W. G. S.] FIFTH SECTIONthe monarchy under jehoram and ahaziah in judah, and the elevation of jehu to the throne in israel. 2 Kings 8:16 to 2 Kings 9:37A.—The reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah in Judah.Chap 2 Kings 8:16-29 (2 Chronicles 21:2-20).16And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel [(] Jehoshaphat being then [had been] king of Judah [)], [or expunge the sentence in parenthesis] Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign. 17Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. 18And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab; for the daughter of Ahab was his wife: and he did evil in the sight of the Lord. 19Yet the Lord would not destroy Judah for David his servant’s sake, as he [had] promised him to give him always [omit always] a light [forever], and to [referring to] his children. 20In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king over themselves. 21So Joram went over to Zair, and all the chariots with him: and he rose by night, and smote the Edomites which compassed him about, and [smote] the captains of the chariots [i.e., of the Edomites]: and the people [of 22Israel] fled into their tents. Yet [So] Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this day. Then Libnah revolted at the same time. 23And the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 24And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead. 25In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. 26Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign: and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. 27And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the Lord, as did the house of Ahab: for he was the son-in-law of [connected by marriage with] the house of Ahab. 28And he went with Joram the son of Ahab [And Joram himself went] to the war against Hazael king of Syria in Ramothgilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram. 29And king Joram went back to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. And Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick. the chronology of the period from ahab to jehu. Polus says of the chronological statement with which this passage commences: Occurrit hic nodus impeditus, because it does not accord with previous data, especially with 2 Kings 1:17, and has, therefore, caused the expositors great trouble. The question whether any reconciliation at all is possible, and, if so, how it is to be brought about, can only be answered after comparing all the data with reference to the reigns of the several kings of both realms between Ahab and Jehu. For, not only does a new period in the history of the monarchy begin with Jehu’s reign, but also it gives a fixed point from which to calculate the chronology of the preceding period, seeing that Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah were both slain by him, perhaps upon, the same day (2 Kings 9:21-27), and so there was a change of occupant on both thrones at the same time. This year, which almost all modern expositors agree in fixing, with a unanimity which is not usual with them, is the year 884 B.C. [This unanimity is not apparent. Rφsch (Art. “Zeitrechnung,” in Herz. Encyc.) gives a table of twelve authorities. They fix this date as follows: Petavius, 884; Ussher, 2Kings 884: Des Vignoles, 876; Bengel, 886; Thiele, 888; Winer, 884; Ewald, 883; Thenius, 884; Keil, 883; Seyffarth, 855; Bunsen, 873. We may add, Rawlinson, 884; Lenormant, 886; Lepsius (on the ground of the Egyptian chronology) 861. No one of them makes this the starting point for introducing the dates of the Christian era into the Jewish chronology, and it is clear that there is no more certain means of establishing the date of Jehu’s accession in terms of the Christian era, than that of any other event. This date being thus arbitrarily fixed by the consensus of chronologers who have reached it by starting from some other date which they were able to fix by some independent means, all the other dates in Bδhr’s chronology must suffer from the uncertainty which attaches to this. It is not an independent and scientific method of procedure. For the true point of connection between the Jewish chronology and the Christian era, see the appendix to this volume. The dates adopted by Bδhr are also there collected into a table for convenience of reference.—W. G. S.] From this date backwards, the dates of the other reigns must therefore be fixed according to the data given in the text. As there are two kings who have the same name, ιεֹ ?ψָ ?ν or ιְ ?δεֹ ?ψָ ?ν (in 2 Kings 1:17 and 2 Chronicles 22:6, both are called ιְ ?δεֹ ?ψָ ?ν, in 2 Kings 9:15; 2 Kings 9:17; 2 Kings 9:21, ιεֹ ?ψָ ?ν is the name of the king of Israel; in 2 Kings 8:16; 2 Kings 8:29, the king of Israel is called ιεֹ ?ψָ ?ν, and the king of Judah ιְ ?δεֹ ?ψָ ?ν, while in 2 Kings 8:21; 2 Kings 8:23-24, the king of Judah is called ιεֹ ?ψָ ?ν), we will call the king of Israel, in what follows, Joram, and the king of Judah, Jehoram, simply in order to avoid ambiguity. We have to bear in mind, first of all, in counting the years of the reigns, the peculiar method of reckoning of the Hebrews. According to a rule which is given several times in the Talmud, and which was adopted also by Josephus in his writings, a year in the reign of a king is reckoned from Nisan to Nisan, in such a way that a single day before or after [the first of] this month is counted as a year (see Keil on 1 Kings 12. s. 139 sq., where the passages from the Talmud are quoted). [The note is as follows: “ ‘The only method of reckoning the year of the kings is from Nisan.’ Further on, after quoting certain passages in proof, it is added: ‘Rabbi Chasda said: “They give this rule only in regard to the kings of Israel.” ’ Nisan was the beginning of the year for the kings, and a single day in the year (i.e., after the first day of Nisan) is counted as a year. ‘One day on the end of the year is counted as a year.’ ” The citations are from the tract on the “Beginning of the Year” (ψΰωׁ δωׁ ?πδ) in the Guemara of Babylon, 100:1 fol. iii., p. 1, ed. Amstel.] It cannot be doubted that this method of reckoning is the one employed in the books before us, for we saw above (1 Kings 15:9; 1 Kings 15:25) that the reign could not have comprised full years to the number stated. The same is also clear from a comparison of 1 Kings 22:51, and 2 Kings 3:1, and other examples will follow. Such a method of reckoning, which counted portions of a year as whole years in estimating the duration of a reign, necessarily produced inaccuracies and uncertainties, so that the difference of a year in different chronological data cannot present any difficulty, much less throw doubt upon the entire chronology of the period or overthrow it. If now we reckon back from the established date, 884 B.C., the reigns of the separate kings, the following results are obtained: (a) For the kings of Judah:—Ahaziah, who died in 884, reigned only one year (2 Kings 8:26), and, in fact, as is generally admitted, not a full twelvemonth. He therefore came to the throne in 884 or 885. His predecessor, Jehoram, reigned eight years (2 Kings 8:17), down to 885, so that his accession fell in 891 or 892. Jehoshaphat, his father, reigned twenty-five years (1 Kings 22:42), that is, from 916 or 917 on. As he came to the throne in the fourth year of Ahab, the accession of the latter falls in 919 or 920. (b) For the kings of Israel.—Joram, who died in 884, had reigned for twelve years (2 Kings 3:1). He came to the throne, therefore, in 895 or 896. His predecessor, Ahaziah, reigned for two years (1 Kings 22:51 and 2 Kings 3:1), but, as is admitted, not two full years. Hence he became king in 897 or 898. Ahab, his father, reigned for twentytwo years (1 Kings 16:29); came to the throne, therefore, between 919 and 920, which agrees with the reckoning above. Again, if we reckon the corresponding years of the reigns in the two kingdoms, we arrive at the following calculation: (a) Ahaziah of Judah became king in the twelfth year of Joram of Israel (2 Kings 8:26), and, as the latter was slain in the same year as the former (884), the one year of the former (2 Kings 8:26), cannot have been a full year, (b) Jehoram of Judah became king in the fifth year of Joram of Israel (2 Kings 8:16), and, as the latter’s accession falls in 895 or 896 (see above), his fifth year coincides with 891 or 892, the date above established for the accession of Jehoram. (c) Ahaziah of Israel became king in the seventeenth (1 Kings 22:51), and his successor, Joram, in the eighteenth (2 Kings 3:1) year of Jehoshaphat, whence it is clear that Ahaziah, as was above remarked, did not reign for two whole years (1 Kings 22:51). The seventeenth of Jehoshaphat falls, reckoning from his accession in 916, in 899, and his eighteenth in 898, whereas, according to the above calculation, Ahaziah came to the throne between 897 and 898, and Joram between 897 and 896. This insignificant discrepancy is evidently due to the Hebrew method of reckoning, for under that system it might well be that the two years of Ahaziah, although not complete, might embrace parts of 898, 897, and 896, and still Ahaziah might follow in the seventeenth and Joram in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. At any rate, the historical details, which are of far greater importance, are not touched by these slight chronological differences, far less are they in contradiction with them. Finally, if we add the reigns of the three kings of Judah, viz., Jehoshaphat twenty-five, Jehoram eight, and Ahaziah one, the sum is thirty-four years. As these years, however, were not all full, there cannot be more than thirty-two in all. The reigns of the three kings of Israel, Ahab twenty-two, Ahaziah two, Joram twelve, amount to thirty-six years, which were not all complete, so that they cannot give in all over thirty-five years. The entire period from Ahab to Jehu contains between thirty-five and thirty-six years, and, as Jehoshaphat came to the throne in the fourth year of Ahab, the sums agree. While the eleven data given in six passages thus agree essentially, one statement, 2 Kings 1:17, according to which Joram of Israel became king in the second year of Jehoram of Judah, differs decidedly. If it is authentic, Jehoshaphat cannot have reigned twenty-five years, but only seventeen, and there was no eighteenth year of his, in which the accession of Joram of Israel is declared to have fallen (2 Kings 3:1). Moreover, Jehoshaphat’s successor, Jehoram of Judah, did not then reign eight (2 Kings 8:17), but fourteen years, and he came to the throne, not in the fifth (2 Kings 8:16) year of Joram of Israel, but a year before him. This brings great disturbance, not only into the chronology, but also into the history of the entire period. In order to do away with this glaring discrepancy, the founder of biblical chronology, Ussher, following the rabbinical book called Seder Olam, adopted the explanation, in his Annal. Vet. et Nov. Testam., 1650, that Jehoram reigned for six or seven years with his father Jehoshaphat. This theory of a joint reign is the most generally accepted explanation. Keil defends it very vigorously, and asserts that “Jehoshaphat, when he marched out with Ahab to war against Syria in Ramoth Gilead (1 Kings 22:3 sq.), appointed his son regent, and committed to him the government of the kingdom. The statement in 2 Kings 1:17, that Joram of Israel became king in the second year of Jehoram of Judah, dates from this joint government.… But, in the fifth year of this joint administration, Jehoshaphat gave up the government entirely to him (Jehoram). From this time, i.e., from the twenty-third year of Jehoshaphat, we have to reckon the eight years of the reign of Jehoram of Judah, so that he reigned alone, after his father’s death, only six years.” This reconciliation is artificial and forced; but the following considerations tell especially against it: (a) The biblical text says nothing anywhere about the assumed fact that Jehoshaphat raised his son to share his throne six or seven years before he died, and that he then, in the fifth year of this divided government, retired entirely, although, if any king had done such a thing, it must have had deep influence on the history of the monarchy. Keil himself is forced to admit that “we do not know the reasons which impelled Jehoshaphat to abdicate in favor of his son two years before his death.” It never can be proper to supplement the history on the basis of an isolated chronological statement. In 2 Chronicles 21:5; 2 Chronicles 21:20, the reign of Jehoram dates from the death of his predecessor, just as in the case of all the other kings, and its duration is stated as eight years, no account being taken of any two years during which he is thought to have reigned while his father was yet alive, or of five years that he reigned jointly with him. It is said there, in 2 Kings 8:3, that Jehoshaphat “gave” to his sons gold and fortified cities, but to his eldest son, Jehoram, the kingdom; yet that clearly refers to the disposition he made for the time after his death, and not to any distribution which he accomplished two, or, in fact, seven, years before his death. (b) Appeal is made, in support of this assumed joint government, to the obscure words in 2 Kings 8:16 : εִ ?ιδεֹ ?ωׁ ?τָ ?θָ ξֶ ?μֶ ?κְ ιְ ?δεּ ?γָ ?δ, which Clericus supplements by ςεּ ?γηι, adhuc erat in vivis, aut simile quidpiam. Keil, with many of the old commentators, translates: “While Jehoshaphat was (still) king of Judah,” i.e., during the lifetime of Jehoshaphat. But those words are wanting in the Syrian and Arabic versions, in some MSS., and in the Complutensian Septuagint. Luther and De Wette leave them untranslated. Houbigant, Kennicott, Dathe, Schulz, Maurer, and Thenius want to remove them from the text. Thenius says that they are “evidently due to an error of the copyist, who has repeated them here from the end of the verse,” and that “they were then provided with the conjunction, in order to give them a connection.” We cannot, therefore, call their omission from the text “a piece of critical violence,” as Keil does. If, however, it is desired to retain them, because they are in the massoretic text, the Chaldee version, the Vulgate, and the Vatican Sept., still they cannot be translated in the manner proposed. The word “still,” which is here so important, is wanting in the text, and cannot be inserted without further deliberation. Kimchi and Ewald, with the rabbinical Sedar Olam, supply ξֵ ?ϊ after ιְ ?δεּ ?γָ ?δ, i.e., “and Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, was dead.” This, however, would be constructing a sentence which states what is true to be sure, but “the super-fluousness of which, and the unprecedentedness also, in the midst of the current formula in which it occurs, it is not necessary to point out” (Thenius). If the words are to stand, the only possible recourse is to supply διδ, which so often is wanting, in the sense of the pluperfect. The sentence would then have to be understood as a parenthesis, intended to refer back again to the last king of Judah, because, in this verse, the history of the kingdom, which has been interrupted by the narrative of other incidents from 1 Kings 22:50 up to this point, is now to be resumed. “Jehoshaphat had been king of Judah.” But in what manner soever the words may be translated, they can in no case obscure the clear and definite declaration that Jehoram became king in the fifth year of Joram of Israel, and that he reigned eight years. What is obscure can never explain what is clear, but only, vice versa, that which is clear can explain what is obscure. (c) When Joram of Israel undertook the war against Moab (2 Kings 3:4 sq.), (at the earliest in the first year of his reign), he called upon “Jehoshaphat king of Judah” to go with him, and when the three kings of Judah, Israel, and Edom, turned, in their distress, to Elisha, he would have nothing to do with Joram, but referred him to the prophets of Ahab and Jezebel, and finally gave ear to him only for the sake of “Jehoshaphat king of Judah,” who was faithful to Jehovah (2 Kings 8:14). But if Jehoram had then been king of Judah according to 2 Kings 1:17, or even joint ruler, Jehoshaphat could not have been spoken of simply as ruling king of Judah. (d) Jehoshaphat held firmly to the worship of Jehovah, and was a decided opponent of all worship of Baal or Astarte. He was, in fact, one of the most pious of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 22:43; 2 Chronicles 17:3-6; 2 Chronicles 19:3; 2 Chronicles 20:32); his son Jehoram, on the contrary, did what was evil in the sight of God, and was devoted to the worship of Baal, which Ahab’s family had introduced (2 Kings 8:18; 2 Chronicles 21:6; 2 Chronicles 21:11 sq.). It is impossible, therefore, that they should have ruled together. If Jehoshaphat had allowed his fellow-ruler to introduce and foster the worship of Baal, he would have made himself a participant in the same guilt, and would not have received the praise of changeless fidelity to Jehovah. (e) Joint governments are foreign to Oriental, and, above all, to Israelitish antiquity. It is true that it is stated in the history of king Azariah (Uzziah) that he was a leper, and, therefore, lived in a separate house, and that his son Jotham “was over the house, judging the people of the land” (2 Kings 15:5). The “house” here meant is the royal palace (cf. 1 Kings 4:6; 1 Kings 18:3), and it is not intended to assert that he became king during the lifetime of the rightful king, as is assumed with regard to Jehoram. Jotham did not become king until Uzziah’s death, and then he ruled for sixteen years (2 Kings 15:7; 2 Kings 15:33). The years in which he acted as regent for his sick father are not reckoned in these, as they should be, if it is to be a precedent for including in the eight years of Jehoram certain years during which he was joint-ruler with his father. There is no statement anywhere with regard to Jehoshaphat that he was sick or otherwise incapacitated for governing. This energetic ruler was far from needing an assistant, certainly not such a weak one as Jehoram. The latter was sick for two years before his death; but even he had no joint regent. His son Ahaziah did not come to the throne until after his death. From all this we see plainly that all attempts to bring 2 Kings 1:17 into agreement with the other chronological data, which are essentially in accord among themselves, are vain. We are therefore forced to the conclusion that the text of this verse, as it lies before us, is not in its original form. Thenius considers it corrupt, and desires to read for: “In the second year of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat,” “in the twenty-second year of Jehoshaphat.” But this does not agree with 2 Kings 3:1, where it is said that Joram of Israel came to the throne in the eighteenth, not twenty-second, of Jehoshaphat, nor with 1 Kings 22:51, where “in the seventeenth year” must be changed, as Thenius proposes, to “in the twenty-first year,” a change which is inadmissible. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the form of statement varies considerably from the standing formula. In each case where the death of a king is recorded, there follows immediately the formula: such a one became king in his stead, without any further details in regard to the successor than simply his name. Then when the history of the following reign commences, often after the insertion of other incidents and reflections of greater or less length, it is stated in what year of the reign of the king of the other nation he began to reign, of what age he was, and how many years he ruled (cf. 1 Kings 14:20-31; 1 Kings 15:8-24; 1 Kings 16:28; 1 Kings 22:40-51; 2 Kings 8:24; 2 Kings 10:35; 2 Kings 12:21; 2 Kings 13:9; 2 Kings 14:16-29; 2 Kings 15:7; 2 Kings 15:22; 2 Kings 15:25; 2 Kings 15:30; 2 Kings 15:38; 2 Kings 16:20; 2 Kings 20:21; 2 Kings 21:18; 2 Kings 21:26; 2 Kings 23:30; 2 Kings 24:6). Now, in 2 Kings 1:17, after the words “and he died according to the word of the prophet Elijah,” follows the ordinary formula, “and Joram became king in his stead;” but then there is added, what is not added in a single other passage: “In the second year of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah,” but without the further details, which are usually given in that connection, in regard to the length of the reign, &c. These details are not added until we come to the commencement of the history of his reign, 2 Kings 3:1; there, however, they vary very much from this short statement, as does also 2 Kings 8:16. Now since, of course, the two complete and precise statements are to be preferred to the incomplete one, the unusual chronological datum in 2 Kings 1:17 must be regarded as a later and incorrect addition, all the more as it stands in contradiction with all the other chronological data of the period in question. It appears distinctly as an addition in the Sept., where it stands at the end of the verse, and is not incorporated into it. It is remarkable that scholars have preferred to change the other complete and consistent data, in order to force them into agreement with this, rather than to give up this one statement which is totally unsupported, and which introduces confusion not only into the chronology, but also into the history. Finally, we have to notice another calculation of the chronology of this period which Wolff has attempted (Studien und Kritiken, 1858, 2 Kings 4 : s. 625–688). He rejects in general very decidedly any assumption of joint sovereignty, and especially the joint rule of Jehoram and Jehoshaphat; but he inconsistently sets up such an assumption when he says (s. 643): “As his (Ahaziah of Israel’s) health was so far lost that he could no longer administer the government, he took his brother Joram on the throne with himself, as co-regent, at about the end of the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. He remained king until the twenty-second year of Jehoshaphat, and then gave up the government entirely in favor of his brother, but did not die until the second year of Jehoram.” Ignoring the above-mentioned Jewish mode of reckoning, and starting from the purely arbitrary and unfounded assumption that only the dates given for the reigns of the kings of Judah are correct and reliable, Wolff changes the twenty-two years of Ahab to twenty, the two years of Ahaziah of Israel to four and a half, makes Joram succeed to the throne in the twenty-second instead of the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram in the third and not in the fifth year of Joram, and, finally, Ahaziah of Judah in the eleventh and not in the twelfth year of Joram. No one else has hitherto conceived the idea of undertaking so many changes in the text; they are all as violent as they are unnecessary, and, therefore, need no refutation, although their necessity is confidently asserted. The joint rule of Ahaziah and Joram is, if possible, still more contrary to the text than that of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram. AND 2 Kings 8:19. Yet the Lord would not destroy Judah, &c. The connection between 2 Kings 8:19-20 is this: Although for David’s sake Judah did not, as a consequence of its apostasy, lose its dynasty and its existence as a nation, yet it had to pay dearly for its sin; for the Edomites, who had been subject to Judah for one hundred and fifty years, endeavored, during Jehoram’s reign, to regain their independence. Josephus says that they had killed the governor, whom Jehoshaphat had appointed (1 Kings 22:47), and had chosen a king for themselves. In order to re-subjugate them Jehoram marched out with an army φָ ?ςִ ?ιψָ ?δ, unquestionably the name of a place, but not equivalent to Zoar (Hitzig and Ewald), for this lay in Moab (Jeremiah 48:34), not in Edom. The place cannot be more definitely located. The chronicler has instead ςִ ?ρΞωָׂ ?ψָ ?ιε, i.e., “with his captains,” and does not mention any place, probably because he did not know any place by the name here given. Thenius proposes to read ωְׂ ?ςִ ?ιψָ ?δ, which is favored by the Vulg., Seira, so that we should have to understand it as referring to the well-known mountainous region of Edom. 2 Kings 8:21. And he rose by night, &c. “It is clear that we have in this verse the record of an unsuccessful attempt of Jehoram to re-subjugate Edom. We must, therefore, form our conceptions of the details according to this character of the whole” (Thenius). It is an utter mistake to understand the occurrence as the Calwer Bibel, on 2 Chronicles 21:7 sq., explains it: “The cowardly, faithless king plotted and executed a massacre by night of the Edomites who surrounded him, in which his own captains also fell; and since, according to 2 Kings 8:21, his own people upon this deserted him, he could not accomplish anything further against the Edomites, and they remained independent.” The passage rather states simply that the army of Judah, as it approached Edom, was surrounded by the Edomites, but broke through them by night, and fled homewards (1 Kings 8:66), so that it barely escaped an utter defeat. From this time on the dominion of Judah over Edom was at an end (Psalms 137:7). 2 Kings 8:22. Unto this day, i.e., until the time of composition of the original document from which this is taken (see above, on 1 Kings 8:8). The Edomites were, indeed, re-subjugated for a short time (2 Kings 14:7; 2 Kings 14:22), but never again permanently.—Then Libnah revolted at the same time. This city lay in the plain of Judah, not far from the frontier of Philistia. It was at one time an ancient royal residence of the Canaanites, and afterwards one of the priests’ cities [cities of refuge] of the Israelites (Joshua 15:42; Joshua 12:15; Joshua 21:13), though it can hardly have retained the latter character until the time of Jehoram. We may suppose that it was instigated to revolt by the Philistines, and that it was assisted by them. Among the further details mentioned by the chronicler, it is stated that the Philistines attacked Jehoram, and inflicted upon him a severe defeat (2 Chronicles 21:16 sq.). [It is also stated there that the allied Philistines and Arabians took Jerusalem and plundered. the temple, an event to which Hitzig refers the passage Joel 4:4–6. Thenius approves this, but thinks that 2 Chronicles 21:17 is inconsistent with 2 Kings 10:3, which assigns a different fate to Ahaziah’s kindred.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 8:25. Did Ahaziah begin to reign. The chronicler states Ahaziah’s age at his accession as forty-two (II., 2 Kings 22:2). This is the result of a mistake of ξ for λ, in the numerals (Keil, Winer, Thenius), as we must conclude from the age assigned to Jehoram in 2 Kings 8:17. Jehoram was, thirty-two when he ascended the throne; he reigned eight years; died, therefore, at forty. Ahaziah was twenty-two at his accession; he was, therefore, born when his father was eighteen. There is nothing astonishing in this, for, according to the Talmud, young men might marry after their thirteenth year, and eighteen was the usual age of marriage (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 297). [It should be noticed that this bears upon 2 Chronicles 21:17, where it is said that Ahaziah was the youngest of the sons of Jehoram.—W. G. S.]—Athaliah is here (2 Kings 8:26) called the daughter of Omri, although she was in fact his granddaughter, because he was the founder and father of the royal house to which she belonged, and which brought so much misfortune upon Israel and Judah. The chronicler adds (II., 2 Kings 22:3), that she was “his [Ahaziah’s] counsellor to do wickedly.” 2 Kings 8:28. And he went with Joram, &c. [Joram himself went; see the amended translation and Textual and Grammatical, note 7. If ΰֶ ?ϊ is taken as the prep., then we have to assume that, after Joram was wounded, Ahaziah also left the seat of war and went to Jerusalem, and then that he went down from there again to Jezreel to visit Joram; for that is the simple and natural meaning of the last clause of 2 Kings 8:29. The awkwardness of this acceptation is evident. It is better to take ΰֶ ?ϊ as the so-called “accusative sign,” as explained in the note referred to.—W. G. S.] On Ramoth-Gilead, see note on 1 Kings 4:13. This strongly fortified city was, in the time of Ahab, in the hands of the Syrians, and he did not succeed in taking it away from them. He was wounded in the attempt so that he died (1 Kings 22). From 2 Kings 9:2; 2 Kings 14:15, we see that, at the time when Joram was at war with Hazael, it was again in the possession of the Israelites. It is not stated when or how, since the death of Ahab, it came into their hands. According to 2 Kings 9:14, Joram was ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ψαְּ ?ψָ ?ξֹ ?ϊ, i.e., he was defending the city against the attacks of Hazael, who was thirsting for conquest, and who undoubtedly commenced the war. It was, therefore, in defending, and not in attacking the city, that Jehoram was smitten, that is, severely wounded. [See note on 2 Kings 9:1. He ordered that he should be taken to Jezreel (see note on 1 Kings 18:45), and not to Samaria, although the latter was much nearer, probably because the court was at Jezreel. [Thenius’ suggestion that he could make this journey over a smooth road, while the way to Samaria lay over mountains, is also good.—W. G. S.] But the army remained under command of the generals in and before Ramoth. The king’s wound does not seem to have healed for some time. Ewald maintains that Ahaziah did not go to the war with Joram, but went to visit him from Jerusalem at a later time, when he was being healed of his wound. He says, therefore, that the particle ΰֶ ?ϊ in 2 Kings 8:28 is to be struck out. There is, however, no ground for this (see Thenius on the verse), for ιָ ?ψַ ?γ, in 2 Kings 8:29, does not prove that he went from Jerusalem to Jezreel, since the latter lay to the north of Ramoth as well as of Jerusalem. It may well be that he visited Joram from Ramoth, whither he had gone with him to the war, especially as it was not so far from there as from Jerusalem. [ΰֶ ?ϊ is not the prep. but the case-sign with the nominative; ιεֹ ?ψָ ?ν is therefore the subject of ειμκְ, and not Ahaziah, as it is commonly understood (see Text. and Gramm.). Ahaziah did not go to Ramoth, but went down from Jerusalem to Jezreel.—W. G. S.] AND ETHICAL1. The history of the reign of the two kings of Judah, which forms a consistent whole, does not interrupt the flow of the narrative, as might at first appear, but is inserted here for good and imperative reasons. The kingdom of Judah had kept itself free from the worship of the calf and of Baal, which prevailed in the kingdom of Israel, until the death of Jehoshaphat. That worship was, however, transplanted to Judah by the marriage of Jehoram, the son and successor of Jehoshaphat, with Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, for Athaliah controlled her husband Jehoram, and his son, Ahaziah, as we see from 2 Kings 8:18; 2 Kings 8:27, and from 2 Chronicles 21:6; 2 Chronicles 22:3, just as Jezebel, the fanatical idolatress, controlled Ahab. Though the guilt of the house of Ahab, which persisted in its evil courses in spite of all the testimonies of the divine grace, and in spite of all the exhortations and threats of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, was already great enough, it became still greater and heavier by the extension of the apostasy to Judah. Thus the measure became full, and the judgment which the prophet Elijah had predicted, the utter destruction of the dynasty, was brought about. It was inaugurated by Hazael, and consummated by Jehu. Joram of Israel was defending Ramoth against the former when he was wounded; he was brought to Jezreel where Jezebel was. Ahaziah of Judah came thither to visit him (by an especial dispensation of Providence, as 2 Chronicles 22:7 expressly states), and so it came to pass that the three chief representatives of the house of Ahab were present at one and the same place. At this time now, Jehu was elevated to the throne; he hastened to Jezreel and killed all three of them, Joram, Ahaziah, and Jezebel. It was necessary, therefore, that the history of Jehoram and Ahaziah of Judah should precede chap. 9, which tells about the elevation of Jehu. This also explains the brevity of this record compared with the more detailed one in Chronicles. The author restricts himself to those details which give the causes and the explanation of the judgment which fell upon Joram and Ahaziah by the hand of Jehu.2. Jehoram and Ahaziah were the first kings of Judah under whom idolatry was not only tolerated, but formally introduced (2 Chronicles 21:11). The book of Chronicles contains no further information than is here given in regard to Ahaziah, who did not reign for even one full year. What is there stated in regard to Jehoram shows him to us as one of the wickedest and most depraved kings that ever reigned in Judah, under whom the nation not only sank religiously, but also politically came near to ruin. He drove it by force to idolatry (εַ ?ιַּ ?γַּ ?η); he murdered his six brothers, and other princes besides; the Edomites established their independence of his authority; the Philistines and Arabians defeated him, and carried off all his treasures, his wives, and his children; finally, a horrible disease attacked him, which lasted two years, when he at length died. Schlier (Die Kφnige in Israel, s. 121 sq.) asserts in regard to him: “It was oppressive to him to be only a joint ruler; he determined to cast off the restraints of a correcting and warning father. So he sought to accomplish this by his marriage. He murdered his six brothers, who were better than himself, and also several chiefs who stood by them, and he held his royal father in captivity. It is true that he scrupled to stain his hand with the blood of his father, and that he left him still the title of king; but he held the government, from this time on, entirely in his own hands.” Of all these facts, with the exception of the murder of his brothers and the other prominent men, there is not a word in the biblical text. They are all pure fictions, to the invention of which the author is led by assuming as an historical certainty that Jehoshaphat and Jehoram ruled together for seven years. After making this assumption he feels justified in going on to explain the circumstances which produced this state of things, and especially why, after five years of this arrangement, Jehoshaphat should have retired entirely from the government for the last two years of his life. [It is a very good, instance of the method of commenting on the Scriptures which consists in inventing possible combinations in order to reconcile apparently inconsistent statements, and it shows what comes of it. It is often undertaken in a false idea of reverence for the Scriptures, and in a mistaken desire to save their authority. It is clear that a high and pure conception of, and loyalty to, historical truth, must be abandoned before any one can adopt this method of interpretation. The statements of the text are one thing, and the inventions of the commentator are another. Any one who undertakes this work must determine beforehand to keep the distinction between the two clearly and firmly before himself in his work, and the only sound method of interpretation is to cling to the text and leave inventions aside. The notion of a joint government is a pure fiction, and there is no reason why any one who adopts it should not go farther, and invent fictitious causes, occasions, and other details to account for it.—W. G. S.] The asserted facts fall to the ground with the false assumption on which they are built. The facts which are given in the documents are more than sufficient in themselves to establish the depravity of Jehoram. His wickedness is explained, since his father was one of the best and most pious kings of Israel, by the influence of his wife, and by his connection with the house of Ahab. In his history and that of Ahaziah we have a terrible example of the way in which one bad woman (Jezebel) can radically corrupt entire dynasties and entire states, and of the curse which rests upon matrimonial connections which are only formed in order to attain political objects (see above, 1 Kings 22. Hist. § 1). AND 2 Kings 8:16-29. Jehoram and his son Ahaziah: (a) The way in which both walked (18–27); (b) how they came to choose this way (18–27); (c) whither they were brought by it (2 Kings 8:20-22; 2 Kings 8:28-29; see also Histor. § 2).—The Spirit of the House of Ahab: (a) Perversion of all divine and human ordinances. Wicked and corrupt women set the tone, and ruled over their weak husbands; (b) immorality, licentiousness, murder, and tyranny (2 Chronicles 21:4; 2 Chronicles 21:6; 2 Chronicles 21:11); (c) contempt, on the one hand, for the richness of God’s long-suffering and goodness, and, on the other, for the warnings of God’s judgments and chastisements. What a different spirit animated the household of a Cornelius (Acts 10:2), of a Crispus (Acts 18:8), of the jailer at Philippi (Acts 16:34)! Cf. Proverbs 14:11; Proverbs 12:7; Psalms 25:2-3.—The Importance of Family Relationships: (a) The great influence which they exert. (They necessarily bring about relationship in spirit and feeling; they work gradually, but mightily; one member of the connection draws another with him, either to good or to evil. In spite of their pious father and grandfather, Jehoram and Ahaziah were tainted by the apostasy of the house of Ahab (2 Kings 8:18; 2 Kings 8:27). How many are not able to resist the evil influences of these connections, and therefore make shipwreck of their faith, and are either drawn into open sin and godlessness, or are transformed into a superficial, thoughtless, and worldly character. (b) The duty which therefore devolves upon us. (The calamities which even the pious Jehoshaphat brought upon his house, nay, even upon his country, arose from the fact that he gave the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel to his son, as a wife, and did not bear in mind that relationships which do not rest upon the word and commandment of God bring discontent and ruin. Therefore beware of entering into relationships which lack the bond of faith and unity of spirit, however grand or advantageous externally they may seem to be. Do not, by such connections, transplant the Ahab and Jezebel spirit into your house, for it eats like a cancer, and corrupts and destroys to the very heart.) 2 Kings 8:19. Behold the faithfulness of God, who, for the sake of the fidelity of the father, chastises indeed the son, but yet will not utterly destroy him.—Cramer: God will sustain his Church (kingdom) until the end of the world, in order that a holy leaven may remain, no matter how many may be found who scoff at His promise to sustain His Church. 2 Kings 8:20. God punishes infidelity to himself by means of the infidelity of men to one another.—Cramer: If we do not keep faith with God, then people must not keep faith with us. By means of insurrection God punishes the sins of sovereigns, and dissolves the authority of kings (cf. Job 12:18). 2 Kings 8:26. Calw. Bib.: It is a horrible thing when not merely relatives, but even a mother instigates to evil. 2 Kings 8:28. Cramer: Have no dealings with a fool-hardy man, for he undertakes what his own mind dictates, and you will have to suffer the consequences with him (Sir 8:18). 2 Kings 8:29. Calw. Bib.: As he so gladly joined himself to Ahab’s family, and was so fond of spending his time with them, there it was, by the ordering of Providence, that he met his end. Those who, by their hostility to the Lord, belong together, must come together, according to God’s just decree, that they may perish together. Jehoram was so anxious to be healed of the bodily wound which the Syrians had given him, that he left the army and returned to Jezreel; but the wounds of his soul, which he had inflicted upon himself, caused him no trouble, and did not lead him back, as they should have done, to Him who promised: “I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds” (Jeremiah 30:17). The children of this world visit one another when they are ill; they do it, however, not in order to console the sick one with the Word of Life, and to advance God’s purpose in afflicting him, but from natural love, from relationship, or other external reasons. Their visits cannot, therefore, be regarded as Christian work. Footnotes: 2 Kings 8:16.—[Keil and Bδhr and the English translators take ειδεωׁ ?τθξμκιδεγδ as a parenthesis. In this view it must be understood that Jehoram of Judah assumed the government during the lifetime of his father. (See the Excursus on the Chronology.) In the Sept. (Alex.) Syr., Arab., and many MSS., the words are wanting. They arise from an error of the copyist, who repeated them from the end of the verse (Thenius, Bunsen). Ewald supplies ξֵ ?ϊ before ξָ ?μַ ?κְ; but, as Thenius well objects, there is no instance of any such statement inserted in the midst of this current formula. 2 Kings 8:17.—[The keri proposes the pl. ωָׁ ?πִ ?ιν according to the rule for numbers between two and ten. 2 Kings 8:18.—[“Daughter of Ahab,” viz., Athaliah, 2 Kings 8:26. According to 2 Chronicles 21:4, he put to death all his brothers, perhaps, as Keil suggests, in order to get the treasures which Jehoshaphat had given to them (2 Chronicles 21:3). 2 Kings 8:19.—[“The Lord would not destroy Judah,” &c., 2 Chronicles 21:7. “The Lord would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that He had made with David,” cf. 2 Samuel 7:12. On πִ ?ιψ, see on 1 Kings 11:36. μְ ?αָ ?πָ ?ιε, i.e., “referring to, or, according to the sense, through, or by means of, his children” (Thenius, Bδhr, Keil, Bunsen, and others). A man’s posterity is spoken of as his light. It burns until his descendants die out. God promised that David’s light should last forever, “referring to” his posterity, through whom, or by preserving whom, God would keep the promise. Cf. 1 Kings 15:4, for another example of the usage. The “and” in the E.V., is imported from 2 Chronicles 21:7, where it is adopted, as in the Vulg. and Sept., as an “easier reading” (Thenius). 2 Kings 8:21.—[δַ ?ρֹּ ?αֵ ?ια is an anomalous form. It is punctuated with tsere, which is thus written full, although it is long only by accent. Ewald only says of it that it “is very remarkable” (s. 52, note 1). There are a few forms like ιεֹ ?ρִ ?ισ which have sometimes been explained as part. kal, and some desire to punctuate this ρֹ ?αִ ?ια, still regarding it as part. kal, but explaining it by the last-mentioned analogy. Bφttcher, however (§ 994, 3), disposes otherwise of every one of those forms, and thus destroys that analogy. He punctuates this δַ ?ρָּ ?αִ ?ια. The sense would not be different, but a concise and literal translation is difficult. “He attacked Edom, the investment against him,” i.e., he attacked the line which enclosed him. 2 Kings 8:21.—[“Smote” must be repeated in the English in order to show that “captain” is in the same construction with “Edomites.” 2 Kings 8:27.—ηϊο is used here generally for a relative by marriage. See the Chron. (II., 2 Kings 22:3-4) for a development of this statement. 2 Kings 8:28.—[ΰֶ ?ϊ is not the prep., but the case-sign. Bφttcher has vindicated for this the signification “self,” § 515, cf. 2 Kings 6:5. “The iron itself;” the part which was iron; not the handle. 2 Kings 8:28.—[For the omission of the article in ΰψξιν, cf. 1 Samuel 17:52-53, and Ew. § 277, c. The article is necessary according to the general usage, but exceptions occur. 2 Kings 8:29.—[“Which the Syrians had given.” The imperf. here, and in 2 Kings 9:15 in the Hebrew text, is very remarkable. Elsewhere we find the perf. in relative or other subordinate clauses, which interrupt the flow of discourse in order to specify attendant circumstances or details. It is like the aorist used for the pluperf. In 2 Chronicles 22:6 we find the perf.—In 2 Chronicles 21:17 it is stated that the Philistines and Arabians carried away all the sons of Jehoram but Jehoahaz, the youngest. In 2 Kings 22:1 it is stated that the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, the youngest and only remaining son of Jehoram, king. The two names are equivalent in meaning, the syllable from the name of Jehovah being in the one case prefixed, and in the other, affixed. Probably the latter form was the one adopted when he ascended the throne. In 2 Kings 22:6 we have the form Azariah, which is probably, as Ewald suggests, a slip of the pen.—W. G. S.] [The dynasty of Omrl and its connections: B.—Jehu’s Elevation to the Throne of Israel2 Kings 9:1-37. [2 Chronicles 22:7-9.1And Elisha the prophet called one of the children of the prophets [prophet-disciples], and said unto him, Gird up thy loins, and take this box [vial] of oil in thine hand, and go to Ramoth-gilead: 2And when thou comest thither, look out there Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in, and make him arise up from among his brethren, and carry [lead] him to an inner chamber; 3Then take the box [vial] of oil, and pour it on his head, and say, Thus saith the Lord, I have anointed [I anoint] thee king over Israel. Then open the door, and flee, and tarry not. 4So the young man, even the young man [the servant of] the prophet, went to Ramoth-gilead. 5And when he came, behold, the captains of the host were sitting; and he said, I have an errand to thee, O captain. And Jehu said, Unto which of all us? And he said, To thee, O captain. 6And he arose, and went into the house; and he poured the oil on his head, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I have anointed [I anoint] thee king over the people of the Lord, even over Israel. 7And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master, that I may avenge the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all 8the servants of the Lord, at the hand of Jezebel. For [omit for] The whole house of Ahab shall perish; and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left [both him that is of age and him that is not of age] in Israel: 9and I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah: 10and the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the portion [purlieus] of Jezreel, and there shall be none to bury her. And he opened the door, and fled. 11Then Jehu came forth to the servants of his lord: and one said unto him, Is all well? wherefore came this mad fellow to thee? And he said unto them, Ye know the man, and his communication [secret]. 12And they said, It is false; tell us now. And he said, Thus and thus spake he to me, saying, Thus saith the Lord, I have anointed [I anoint] thee king over Israel. 13Then they hasted, and took every man his garment, and put it under him [Jehu] on the top of the stairs 14[bare steps], and blew with trumpets, saying, Jehu is king. So Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi conspired against Joram. (Now Joram had kept [defended] Ramoth-gilead, he and all Israel, because of [against] Hazael king of Syria: 15but king Joram was returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him, when he fought with Hazael king of Syria.) And Jehu said, If it be your minds, then let none [no fugitive] go forth nor escape [omit nor escape] out of the city to go to tell it in Jezreel. 16So Jehu rode in a chariot, and went to Jezreel; for Joram lay there. And Ahaziah king of Judah was come down to see Joram. 17And there stood a watchman on the tower in Jezreel, and he spied the company of Jehu as he came, and said, I see a company. And Joram said, Take a horseman, and send to meet them, and let him say, Is it peace [Is all well]? 18So there went one on horseback to meet him, and said, Thus saith the king, Is it peace [Is all well]? And Jehu said, What hast thou to do with peace [well or ill]? turn thee behind me. And the watchman told, saying, The messenger came to them, but he cometh not again. 19Then he sent out a second on horseback, which came to them, and said, Thus saith the king, Is it peace [Is all well]? And Jehu answered, What hast thou to do with peace [well or ill]? turn thee behind me. 20And the watchman told, saying, He came even unto them, and cometh not again: and the driving is like the driving of Jehu the son of Nimshi; for he driveth furiously. 21And Joram said, Make ready. And his chariot was made ready. And Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah went out, each in his chariot, and they went out against [to meet] Jehu, and met him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite. 22And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace [Is all well], Jehu? And he answered, What peace [is well], so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts [sorceries] are so many? 23And Joram turned his hands, and fled, and said to Ahaziah, There is treachery, 24[Treachery!] O Ahaziah. And Jehu drew [took] a bow with his full strength [in his hand] and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the arrow went out at 25his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot. Then said Jehu to Bidkar his captain [lieutenant], Take up, and cast him in the portion of the field of Naboth the Jezreelite: for remember how that, when I and thou rode together [two by two] after Ahab his father, the Lord laid this burden [passed this sentence] upon him; 26Surely I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons, saith the Lord; and I will requite thee in this plat, saith the Lord. Now therefore take and cast him into the plat of ground, according to the word of the Lord. 27But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled by the way of the garden house. And Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite him also [Him also! Smite him] in the chariot. And they did so at the going up to Gur, which is by Ibleam. And he fled to Megiddo, and died there. 28And his servants carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem, and buried him in his sepulchre with his fathers in the city of David. 29And in the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign over Judah. 30And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face [eyelids], and tired her head, and looked out at a window. 31And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Had Zimri peace, who slew his master 32[Hail! thou Zimri, murderer of his master!]? And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who is on my side? who? And there looked out to him two or three eunuchs. 33And he said, Throw her down. So they threw her down; and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses: and he trode her under foot. 34And when he was come in, he did eat and drink, and said, Go, see now [to] this cursed woman, and bury her: for she is a king’s daughter. 35And they went to bury her: but they found no more of her than the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands. 36Wherefore they came again, and told him. And he said, This is the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion [purlieus] of Jezreel shall 37dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel. And the carcass of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the portion [purlieus] of Jezreel; [so] [so] that they shall not say, This is Jezebel. AND 2 Kings 9:1. And Elisha called one of the prophet-disciples, &c. Elisha was undoubtedly at this time in Samaria, where his residence was. The prophet-disciple, to whom he gave this commission, may have stood to him in the same relation in which he once stood to Elijah. It is an unfounded supposition of several of the rabbis that it was the prophet Jonah, the son of Amittai [2 Kings 14:25].—To Ramoth: see 2 Kings 8:28.—It is not stated anywhere to what tribe Jehu belonged. It is very probable that he, as the most able of the generals, had received the supreme command on the departure of Joram, as Josephus states. 2 Kings 9:2. And go in: i.e., into the house in which he dwells, as is clear from 2 Kings 9:6 (δַ ?αַּ ?ιְ ?ϊָ ?δ), and from the words: to an inner chamber (see note on 1 Kings 20:30). Jehu with his army was not, therefore, in camp before Ramoth besieging it, but in the city itself defending it (see note on 2 Kings 8:28). [No mention is made anywhere of any hostilities between Israel and Syria, from the death of Ahab until this time, in which the city of Ramoth could have changed hands. It is clear that the representation throughout this chapter is, that the Israelites were in possession of the city. It may, therefore, be inferred with considerable certainty that they had succeeded in taking it in this war, either in the assault in which Joram was wounded, or in some previous one. If Joram had gained this important victory for them, it is not probable that the army would lave been in a disposition to see him deposed by my one else. The inference is that, in the battle, he had not conducted himself well, and that Jehu’s talents had shone by comparison. It would be quite consistent with the character of each as it appears to us elsewhere. Moreover, we see from 2 Kings 9:21 that Joram was already so far recovered as to be able to go out in his chariot to meet Jehu. Yet he had not rejoined his army. This would seem to indicate that he had made much of a slight wound, and that he was shirking the hardships of the war. Putting all this together, we can understand that the feeling of the army towards the king was that of contempt, and towards Jehu that of admiration and respect, and the sudden and complete success of the revolution is not then difficult to understand.—W. G. S.] The prophet-disciple entered the house, in the court of which the generals were sitting together, perhaps holding a council of war. Jehu was to be anointed privately, and the fact was for a time to be kept secret. 2 Kings 9:3. And tarry not: that no questions might be asked and “that he might not be involved in affairs with which he was not competent to deal” (Von Gerlach); Josephus: ὅπωςλάθῃ πάνταςἐκεῖθενἀπιών. It was not, therefore, in order that he might escape the danger of being captured by the friends of Joram (Theodoret, Clericus). 2 Kings 9:6. I have anointed thee; see above. Exeg. on 1 Kings 19:16.—On 2 Kings 9:7-10 see notes on 1 Kings 14:10; 1 Kings 16:3-4; 1 Kings 18:4; 1 Kings 19:10; 1 Kings 21:21 sq. On ηֵ ?μֶ ?χ see note on 1 Kings 21:23 [and note on this verse under Textual and Grammatical]. 2 Kings 9:11. Then Jehu came forth, &c. The question δֲ ?ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν occurs, in this chapter, six times, and it is impossible that it should have a different sense in each case. As it evidently stands in opposition to “strife” or “hostility” in 2 Kings 9:17-18; 2 Kings 9:22; 2 Kings 9:31, it must also be translated in its original meaning in 2 Kings 9:11, “Is it peace?” and not: rectene sunt omnia? (Vulg.); or Stehet es wohl (is all well)? (Luther). Cf. 1 Kings 2:13. [Nearly all the commentators agree with the opinion here advocated, and translate “Is it peace?” ωׁ ?μεν unquestionably meant, originally and etymologically, welfare, salus. It is often used generally, not in any special formula, for “peace.” As a formula of salutation, however, its etymological signification was entirely lost, as much as in our own “good-bye,” the etymological meaning of which we very seldom have in mind when we use it. As a question it is destitute of intrinsic meaning. It merely asks, “What is the news you bring?” In form only it asks, “Is it good news?” “Is all well?” Every language presents similar examples of current formulζ and words which have lost their etymological significance. Our own word “well” is a good instance, particularly in colloquial usage, where it often is almost meaningless, and where it often implies anything but approval of what has preceded. The inflection of the voice here carries all the significance. A similar instance occurs in this chapter. In 2 Kings 9:26 Jehu quotes the sentence of God upon Ahab, beginning with the words ΰִ ?νμֹ ?ΰ. This is the formula for an oath, and an ellipsis is necessary to explain the form. This consists of an imprecation upon the speaker by himself. “If I did not see—then may—&c.” As Thenius well remarks, we cannot believe that the origin of this formula could have been present to the mind of Jehu, or that he could have thought of the alternate, omitted, phrase, when he represented God as having spoken in these words. The alternative was utterly lost sight of, and ΰνμΰ meant simply “verily,” as a strong affirmation.—δωׁ ?μεν therefore is simply a salutation which calls upon the person addressed to tell the news, or his message. So in 2 Kings 9:11 it might be translated: “Well? Wherefore came,” &c. In 2 Kings 9:17-18 it has the same meaning, but Jehu plays upon it by using it in its strict meaning in his reply (see the amended translation). In 2 Kings 9:22 this is still more evident. In 2 Kings 9:31 Jezebel uses it as the regular conventional salutation, with which to address her insulting and defiant words to Jehu. To make it mean in 2 Kings 9:17-18; 2 Kings 9:22, “Is there peace?” i.e., do you come with hostile or peaceful intent towards me? is to ascribe to the king a suspicion, first of the unknown party which is approaching, and afterwards of Jehu. If he had been suspicious that it was an enemy, he would not have sent out one man; if he had been suspicious of Jehu, he would not have gone down himself, and, as it seems, without guards, to meet him. Finally, 2 Kings 9:23 shows that he did not suspect anything until he heard Jehu’s answer, which was a bold condemnation of Jezebel. Then he recognized treachery, and, as soon as he did, he endeavored to escape. To send out a man to meet the coming troop and “say δωׁ ?μεν,” was, therefore, simply to send him out to salute them and inquire what was the intelligence they brought. When Jehu was recognized, the same message was sent to him (cf. 2 Kings 10:13). Finally, the king went to ask for himself. The only news which he expected was news about the war. When the commander-in-chief came riding in hot haste towards the capital, news, either of a great victory or an overwhelming defeat, was to be expected. As for hostility from the approaching party before it was recognized, or from Jehu after he was recognized, there was no thought of it, until Jehu’s answer, in 2 Kings 9:23, revealed it all at once as openly declared.—W. G. S.] The generals put this inquiry, not because “they feared the madman might have done him some harm” (Ewald), but because they inferred, from the haste with which the prophet-disciple departed, that he had brought important intelligence, perhaps bad news, about the war with Syria (Thenius). Their further question: Wherefore came this δַ ?ξְּ ?ωֻׁ ?βָּ ?ς to thee? is generally understood as the mocking and contemptuous speech of rude soldiers about a prophet. The Hebrew word is then understood to mean a madman or rhapsodist. It is certain, however, that these soldiers, who were expecting important and perhaps discouraging intelligence in regard to the war, were not in a disposition to scoff at prophets. If they had taken the prophet for a madman, they would not, when Jehu made known to them (2 Kings 9:12) the object for which he came, have taken the extraordinary step they did, without consideration or delay, and made Jehu king, on the word of a fanatic. In 2 Kings 9:20 it is said of Jehu himself: “He driveth αְּ ?ωִׁ ?πָּ ?ςεֹ ?ο,” whereby it is not meant to be said that he was a crazy man, a lunatic, or a fanatic, but that he was a man of fierce and violent temper (Vatablus, following the Syriac, translates pr�cipitanter). In Arabic ωׁ ?βς means to be bold, rash, wild (see Ges. Dict., s. v.). The generals meant to say, therefore, that the wild behavior of the man, who had come and gone without saying a word to any one, had struck them. They thought that his conduct indicated some extraordinary intelligence, and they wanted to know what it was. Jehu at first gives them an evasive answer: Ye know the man and his ωִׂ ?ιηַ. This word does not mean “his speech or words” (Ges., De Wette, and Luther, who follows the Vulg.: et quid locutus sit); nor, “his babble” (Junius, Kφster, and Philippson, who follows the Sept. ἀδολεσχία), for the word, does not occur anywhere in this sense. Neither does Jehu connect with his words the meaning: “Ye yourselves have sent this prophet to me, in order to give me courage to carry out the plan which ye have formed (Dereser following Seb. Smith; J. D. Michaelis), nor this meaning: “Ye know the man and what he said to me; ye yourselves are at the bottom of this jest, for ye it was who planned the farce” (Krummacher). Jehu could not have meant this, for he knew that the plan or jest had not originated with the generals, and his answer would not then have been an evasive one. No less incorrect is the explanation of Cornelius a Lapide, whom Keil follows: Nostis, eum insanum esse ac proinde insana loquitur, ideoque non credenda, nec a me narranda, for ωִׂ ?ιηַ is no synonym of ωָׁ ?βַ ?ς. Finally, we cannot translate it with Bunsen and Thenius, “his disposition:” “Ye should be accustomed to his disposition, since ye have often seen him before.” The word is rather to be taken here in the same sense as in 1 Kings 18:27, i.e., meditatio, absorption in thought; so that, in other places, it stands for every deep agitation of the soul: rancor, sorrow, or dissatisfaction (Psalms 54:2; Psalms 102:1; Psalms 142:2; Job 7:13), and in 1 Samuel 1:16 it stands as synonym to λַ ?ςַ ?ν. Jehu means to say: The conduct of this man ought not to astonish you; he was lost in thought, as prophets are wont to be; therefore he did not enter into conversation with any one, and departed as hastily as he came. [It must be apparent that the epithet ξְ ?ωֻׁ ?βָּ ?ς, as it is correctly explained above, is not a proper epithet for a man who is lost in meditation. Wildness of behavior is in general inconsistent with meditation. Moreover, as above stated (note on 2 Kings 9:11), it is an error to take δωμεν to mean “Is there peace?” and then to suppose that these soldiers asked the question with reference to the war with Syria. How should they ask whether there was peace with Syria, when they were there on purpose to make war with that country? or how should they expect that this prophet could bring intelligence which was to decide that point? The prophet came from home, from Israel, and although his message might ultimately bear upon the continuance of the war with Syria, the natural expectation would be that he brought news from Israel, whence he came. They asked in general what the news was which he brought. The epithet which they applied need not be pressed so far as to make them guilty of any intentional disrespect to a prophet. He was wild in his behavior, and they called him carelessly a “mad fellow.” The tone and meaning could hardly be better given in English. Jehu’s reply is best understood as an attempt to sound them. He appears in chap. 10. distinctly in the character of a crafty man. So here; he is in doubt whether the prophet has been instigated by his fellow-commanders to do this thing, because they hesitated to make an outspoken proposition of rebellion to him. He charges them With having plotted this, as a means of inducing him to rebel. Ye know the man, and the errand he had. ωִׂ ?ιηַ occurs very frequently in the sense of “complaint,” a deep-seated subject of anxiety. It is used here of the business or communication which the prophet brought deeply hidden in his heart—the deep plot which had been the result of long meditation. To this interpretation of 2 Kings 9:11, ωֶׁ ?χֶ ?ψ, “it is a lie,” in 2 Kings 9:12, answers well. They deny the charge.—W. G. S.] The generals notice that Jehu is trying to evade them, and, as he is not able to conceal his agitation entirely, they are only the more urgent. They reply: ωֶׁ ?χֶ ?ψ, i.e., not: “That is not true!” (Luther, Keil), or: “A lie!” (De Wette), but, “Deceit!” (1 Samuel 25:21; Jeremiah 3:23), Thenius: “Nonsense! thou desirest to escape us.” Thereupon Jehu cannot help himself any longer; he tells them plainly what has happened. Niemeyer’s interpretation: “It is true that he (this man) does not always tell the truth, yet tell us what he said,” is certainly false. 2 Kings 9:13. Then they hasted and took every man his garment. The immediate and joyful homage to the general shows, on the one hand, that they were far from scoffing at the prophet, or regarding him as a crazy man or a mere fanatic, on the other hand, that a deep dissatisfaction with Joram and the house of Ahab prevailed in the army, while Jehu stood in high esteem. The words ΰֶ ?μΞβֶּ ?ψֶ ?νδַ ?ξַּ ?ςֲ ?μεֹ ?ϊ have been understood in many different ways. Generally βֶּ ?ψֶ ?ν is taken in the sense of its synonym ςֶ ?φֶ ?ν, “self,” and the clause is translated: “upon the stairs themselves,” i.e., upon the bare steps (Kimchi, whom Keil follows); but the word scarcely has this signification except in connection with personal pronouns. Still less can we approve the translation of Grotius, Clericus, and others: in fastigio graduum, for βֶּ ?ψֶ ?ν never means the top or summit. Thenius believes that βֶּ ?ψֶ ?ν is written for φֶ ?μֶ ?ν, as the Vulg. shows: in similitudinem tribunalis. He translates: “As a representation of (or make-shift for) the (necessary) scaffolding [by mounting upon which to show himself to the people and receive their homage, a king was inaugurated], Jehu stepped up upon the piled-up garments.” But, to say nothing of other objections, there could be no mention of “steps” in connection with a pile of heaped-up garments. Evidently, we have rather to think of a spreading-out of the garments such as is recorded in Matthew 21:8, and, as ΰֶ ?μ, which we must not interchange with ςַ ?μ, designates motion to or towards, we translate literally: “towards,” or, “in the direction of, the stairs.” In the building, in which the generals were assembled, there was, therefore, a staircase, an arrangement like that in the court of the temple for the king (2 Chronicles 6:13), which had perhaps been prepared for the king, who formerly lived in Ramoth. The generals spread their garments over the ground from the place where Jehu stood to this place, which was ordinarily reserved for the king, and thus formed a path for him to this place, on which they saluted him with royal honors. [See note under Grammatical on this verse.]—On the blowing of the trumpet, see note on 1 Kings 1:34; cf., 2 Kings 11:14. 2 Kings 9:14 does not state the cause of the act in 2 Kings 9:13, but the consequence of it, so that we must not understand that there was a “conspiracy” in the ordinary sense of the word, i.e., a secret bond, previous to the wounding of Joram (Kφster). After they had chosen Jehu king by acclamation, he bound himself and them firmly and solemnly to hostility to Joram (χωψ means to bind, to fetter). The word does not imply, in itself, that he made them take an oath of allegiance to himself. 2 Kings 9:14. Joram had defended Ramoth, &c. ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ψαְּ ?ψָ ?ξֹ ?ϊ shows again, what we saw in ver 6, that the city was not at that time besieged by Joram (Kφster), but that he was in it and was defending it against the Syrians. In 2 Kings 9:15-16 we have a repetition of 2 Kings 8:28-29, but it is not “a mere superfluous” repetition, which “proves that those verses and the chapter before us were not written by the same person” (Thenius). In the former place the statement is purely historical, but here it is intended to explain the event narrated in 2 Kings 9:1-14. 2 Kings 9:21 shows that Joram was healed at the time that Jehu was anointed. Instead of returning, however, to share the labors and the dangers of the war, he remained in his summer palace in Jezreel, and appears to have been taking his pleasure with his guest, king Ahaziah of Judah. This must have had a bad effect on the army, which could see in it only indifference or cowardice, and it explains the enthusiasm with which they yielded allegiance to Jehu, as well as the haste with which the latter started for Jezreel, inasmuch as it was important for him to lay hands at once upon the trio, Joram, Ahaziah, and Jezebel. He therefore proposes to the generals that they shall keep the army at Ramoth, and not allow any one to leave the city, and he hastens with a small company (ωִׁ ?τְ ?ςָ ?δ 2 Kings 9:17) to take possession of Jezreel. Peter Martyr: Silentium et celeritatem adhibet, ne Joramo spatium detur vel ad deliberandum vel ad se muniendum. Ewald’s assertion: “He mounted his chariot alone with his old companion in arms Bidkar, and drove,” &c., contradicts the text. 2 Kings 9:17. And there stood a watchman, &c. 2 Kings 9:17 stands in close connection with the end of 2 Kings 9:16. While the two kings were enjoying themselves in the summer palace, and thought of no danger, the watchman appeared before Joram, and reported: “I see a company.” That which is narrated in 2 Kings 9:17-20 is as characteristic of Joram as of Jehu, and that is why it is narrated with so much detail. It shows, on the one hand, how careless Joram was, since it was not till after he had in vain sent out two horsemen, that he took a more earnest view of the matter, and, on the other hand, how decided and energetic Jehu was, since he did not allow himself to be detained, and kept the two horsemen in his own train, lest they should hurry on before him with intelligence of his coming. His question in 2 Kings 9:18 has the meaning, What is it of thy business, whether I come in friendship or in hostility; thou hast nothing to do with that, it does not concern thee. [See note on 2 Kings 9:11. It is probable that the watchman had seen, while they were at a distance, that they were not Syrians. As they came nearer, he recognized more and more distinctly that they were Israelites, and he inferred, from their violent speed, that Jehu, the commander of the army, whose wild and fierce disposition was well known to him, was at their head. On αְּ ?ωִׁ ?βָּ ?ςεֹ ?ο see note on 2 Kings 9:11. 2 Kings 9:21. And Joram said; Make ready, &c. Now, at length, when he heard Jehu’s name, ho became anxious, and set out to meet him—a thing which he could not have done, be it noticed, if he had been confined by his wound. [It must be clear that this anxiety could only have been as to what events of the war east of the Jordan could have been the cause that the chief commander came hurrying home in such haste. If he had suspected treachery, it is not conceivable that he would have gone to meet Jehu. See notes on 2 Kings 9:11; 2 Kings 9:22; 2 Kings 9:30.—W. G. S.] The portion of Naboth, where the two kings met Jehu, “is the λֶּ ?ψֶ ?ν, vineyard, of Naboth, which now formed a part of the park of the royal palace” (Keil). Joram’s question, 2 Kings 9:22, “Is it peace?” shows that he did not even yet suspect rebellion, but rather expected news of a victory from Ramoth, otherwise he certainly would not have gone out alone to meet him. [That is to say; the question had reference to the hostility between Syria and Israel, not to my suspected hostility of Jehu towards his king. This is just the distinction which must be kept in mind, and this question must be interpreted as asking news of the war. No other interpretation is possible. The rest of the chapter must therefore be interpreted consistently with this. The king did not here ask: Is there peace between me and thee? No more did he send a messenger to ask: Dost thou come for peace or war between me and thee? in 2 Kings 9:17-18. If he knew that they were Israelites, he certainly did not ask the question in this sense; if he thought that they were Syrians, he would not send out one man to ask them the idle question whether they came for peace or war. See note below, on 2 Kings 9:30.—W. G. S.]—In Jehu’s answer, ςַ ?γ has the same force as in Judges 3:26 [so long as, or, while]. He gives as the reason for his hostile coming, the whoredoms and sorceries of Jezebel. [He gives the king to understand that he has not come to bring news from the war, but to overthrow him, by a reply in which he condemns the vices of the queen-mother, in terms which no man could use who was willing any longer to be a subject.—W. G. S.] ζְ ?πεּ ?πִ ?ιν not to be taken literally, but is used, as it so often is, in referring to idolatry (Jeremiah 3:2; Jeremiah 3:9; Ezekiel 23:27, &c.), with which, however, licentiousness was almost always connected. By λְּ ?ωָׁ ?τִ ?ιν we have not to understand “mysteries” (Thenius), but that general practice of sorcery, and use of incantations for producing various supernatural effects (Winer, R.-W.-B., II. s. 718), which was closely connected with idolatry. All these practices were forbidden, as well as idolatry, on pain of death, in the Mosaic law (Exodus 22:18; Deuteronomy 18:10). Jehu’s words show that Jezebel was generally regarded as the foundress and patroness of idolatry. They also contain a rebuke for Joram, because he had submitted to be led by her, had helped her instead of opposing her, and had thereby made himself accessory to her crime.—εַ ?ιַּ ?δֲ ?τֹ ?κְ, 2 Kings 9:23, see 1 Kings 22:34. The exclamation, ξִ ?ψְ ?ξָ ?δ, deceit, means, “We are deceived, i.e., really, betrayed” (Keil). 2 Kings 9:24. Between his arms, i.e., from behind, since Joram, in his flight, had turned his back to Jehu. It means, therefore, really, between the shoulders (Vulg. inter scapulas), so that the arrow went obliquely through his heart. 2 Kings 9:25. Then said Jehu to Bidkar, his lieutenant. ζְ ?λֹ ?ψ is rendered by all the old versions, which are misled by ΰπι, which follows, in the first person: “For I remember how,” &c. But it is evidently incorrect. Whether ψֹ ?λְ ?αִ ?ιν here signifies riding on horseback, or in a chariot, is of very little importance. The point is, that Jehu was in Ahab’s retinue, was an ear-witness when the prophet pronounced upon the king the sentence of God, after the death of Naboth (1 Kings 21:19 sq.). This had made an ineffaceable impression upon Jehu.—ξַ ?ωָּׂ ?ΰ means really: “burden,” i.e., something which must be borne. If God lays a “burden” upon any one, he passes a sentence of punishment upon him, which must be endured. Hence the word is often used by the prophets in the sense of a condemnation of, or judicial sentence upon, a man or a nation (Isaiah 13:1; Isaiah 14:28; Isaiah 15:1).—ΰνμֹ ?ΰ, in an oath or affirmation: “Verily” (Numbers 14:28). Jehu quotes the sentence which was pronounced 1 Kings 21:19-24 according to its substance, as it remained in his memory after sixteen years, and with such inaccuracies in the wording as were occasioned by his excitement in a moment of the most violent activity. The repetition of “saith the Lord” places emphasis on the oracle of God, as such. I have seen, saith the Lord: I will repay, saith the Lord. Jehu, however, mentions something which was not mentioned at all in the former place; viz., “The blood of his sons,” and that he should be requited in the field of Naboth. Thenius considers this an “essential variation,” and says that “all attempts at reconciliation are vain.” But the author must have been the most thoughtless man in the world, if he had not perceived that what he here recorded was contradictory to what he had written a few pages before. It may, therefore, nevertheless be permitted us to attempt a “reconciliation” which will make him talk sense. Although the blood of the sons of Naboth is not mentioned in 1 Kings 21, it may nevertheless be that they were also killed. It is impossible that Jehu should have talked to an eye and ear witness, as Bidkar was, about the blood of the sons of Naboth, if their blood had never actually been spilled. Thenius very justly remarks on 2 Kings 9:7 (“And the blood of all the servants of the Lord”), that “Jezebel must have vented her rage upon a still wider circle than that which is expressly mentioned.” Perhaps Naboth’s sons were murdered because it was feared that they might lay claim to the property of which their father had been robbed, and might avenge his murder. Jehu mentions their blood also, as well as that of their father, because the divine punishment would thereby appear all the more just, and his own command, to throw Joram’s corpse upon the field of Naboth, would be more completely justified. As the murder fell upon Naboth and his sons, so the penalty fell upon Ahab and his sons. The word “yesterday” must not be insisted upon too strongly in its strict signification. It implies simply, “a while ago,” as in Isaiah 30:33. The sentence of condemnation in 1 Kings 21. was certainly not pronounced on the day after Naboth’s murder. Secondly, as to the addition, “In this plat,” the emphasis is not upon this phrase, but upon the word requite: that is the main idea, about which all the rest is grouped, not the “plat.” The slaying of Joram, the “son of a murderer” (2 Kings 6:32) is marked as a penalty for the murder of Naboth and his sons by this very circumstance, that his body is cast upon the field which that murder had been committed to win. Jehu very justly saw, in the fact that Joram must die just here, a dispensation of Providence, the ground for which he discovers in the oracle 1 Kings 21. [Jehu commands the corpse to be cast upon the field of Naboth, and proceeds to quote the oracle as a motive for the command, after which he repeats his order. (Throw him there, for God said that he would requite him there; therefore throw him there.) It is, therefore, evident that the emphasis is on the words, “In this plat.” For the rest, 1 Kings 21:19 is strictly and literally fulfilled by this command of Jehu, although it is not literally quoted.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 9:27. But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, &c. The garden-house, towards which Ahaziah fled, was certainly not the summer palace in Jezreel (Calmet), but, since he sought the open country, either a house which “stood at one of the exits from the park” (Thenius), or which did not belong at all to the royal domain, but “stood at some distance from Jezreel” (Keil).—And Jehu followed after him, and said, &c. From his words it is clear that he did not himself pursue Jehu, but gave the command to do so, just as so often that which one commands to be done is ascribed to himself. His object was to reach Jezreel, where Isabel, the originator of all the mischief, was, and, as he was now close to the city, he hastened thither (2 Kings 9:30), leaving the pursuit of Ahaziah to some of his followers. After the words: “Smite him in the chariot,” something must be supplied, viz., the fulfilment of the command, as also after the command in 2 Kings 9:26 : “Cast him into the plat of ground,” &c. The Sept. have: Καίγεαὐτόν. Καὶ ἐπάταξεναὐτὸνἐπὶ τῷ ἄρματιὄνταἐντῇ ἀναβάσειΓούρ. Thenius, as usual, follows them, and desires to make the utterly unnecessary change from δַ ?λֻּ ?δεּ to εַ ?ιַּ ?λֵּ ?δεּ. He then translates: “Him also! (I must have him also!) And he smote (wounded) him on the chariot on the height of Gur.” The rendering of the Vulg. is better: Etiam hunc percutite in curro suo! Et percusserunt eum in ascensu Gaver, except that in curru suo belongs with percusserunt. Ewald, Maurer, and Keil are satisfied with inserting εַ ?ιַּ ?λֻּ ?δεּ after δַ ?λֻּ ?δεּ, and this is certainly the simplest course to pursue.—The height or hill Gur is not mentioned anywhere else. [Thenius takes πּ ?εּ ?ψ to mean a caravanserai (cf. βּ ?εּ ?ψαַּ ?ςַ ?μ, 2 Chronicles 26:7, hospitium Baalis. Ges.), and thinks that the hill had its name from an inn which stood alone upon it. Ges., Thesaurus, gives the name under βεּ ?ψ, catulus, a cub or whelp. So that it would mean ascensus catuli. The place was not important, and the name was a popular and ephemeral one.—W. G. S.] Jibleam is mentioned Joshua 17:11 and Judges 1:27 in connection with Megiddo. On the latter place, see note on 1 Kings 4:12. The location of Jibleam cannot be more definitely fixed either from the two places cited, or from 1 Chronicles 6:55, where αִּ ?μְ ?ςָ ?ν stands for it. As Megiddo lay, according to all the latest maps, directly west of Jezreel, and as Ahaziah died at Megiddo, Jibleam, whither he fled and where he was wounded, must have been likewise to the west of Jezreel, and between that place and Megiddo (Thenius). It is true that Keil objects that “between Jezreel and Megiddo there is only the plain of Jezreel or Esdraelom, in which we cannot suppose that there was any height Gur.” But Megiddo, and therefore Jibleam, which was near it, did not lie in the midst of the plain, but on the slope of Mt. Carmel, where there may well have been a height, such as is referred to. Least of all can we adopt Keil’s supposition that Jibleam was “south of Jenin,” for this place was in a direct line as far south of Jezreel as Megiddo was west. It is not clear how Ahaziah, when severely wounded, should have gone from there in a northwesterly direction, to Megiddo. He cannot have fled at the same time in a direct westerly and a direct southerly direction.—The chronicler gives another story of Ahaziah’s death (II., 2 Kings 22:8 sq.): “And it came to pass that when Jehu was executing judgment upon the house of Ahab … he sought Ahaziah, and they caught him, for he was hid in Samaria, and brought him to Jehu; and when they had slain him they buried him.” Keil thinks, in order to combine the two stories, that it is very possible “that Ahaziah really escaped to Samaria, and that he was there captured by Jehu’s followers and brought back. Then that he was wounded at the hill Gur, near Jibleam, and, having fled again from there, that he breathed his last at Megiddo.” This explanation is, in the first place, very forced and unnatural, but it falls to the ground when we know that Jibleam was on the road westward towards Megiddo, and not on the road from Jezreel to Samaria. A variation in the history is here clearly apparent, and cannot be denied. The main point, i.e., the slaying of Ahaziah by Jehu or his followers, is firmly established by both. A different tradition in regard to the where? and how? may have prevailed in the time of the Chronicler. The one which is followed by the record before us, which is certainly older, appears, especially on account of its geographical details, to be the more correct and reliable.—The difference between 2 Kings 9:29 and 2 Kings 8:25, which amounts, after all, to only one year, is explained “most simply on the supposition of a difference in reckoning the first year of the reign of Joram” (Keil). See above, note on 2 Kings 8:16. 2 Kings 9:30. Jezebel heard of it. Women make use of paint for the eyes, in the Orient, until the present day. It consists of a mixture of antimony (stibium) and zinc, which is moistened with oil, and applied with a brush to the eye-brows and eye-lids. The eye itself is thrown into relief by the dark border, and appears larger (Pliny says of stibium in his Hist. Nat. 2Kings 33: in calliblepharis mulierum dilatat oculos). Large eyes were considered beautiful. Homer applies to Juno the epithet βοῶπις (cf. Rosenmόller, Alt. und Neu. Morgenland, iv. 268, and Keil on this passage). [Boxes have been found in the tombs of Egypt containing portions of this mixture; also the small, smooth sticks of wood, or bone, or ivory, by means of which it was applied. There are specimens in the “Abbot Collection” in the rooms of the N. Y. Hist. Soc.—W. G. S.] And tired her head hardly means that she put on a “coiffure of false hair” (Thenius). It refers rather to the ordinary decorations of the head, head-band, crown, &c. The old opinion, which is still held by Ewald and Eisenlohr, that she summoned up all her seductive fascinations, in order to tempt and conquer Jehu, is certainly incorrect, for Jezebel had, at this time, a grandson who was 23 years old (2 Kings 8:26), so that she must have been advanced in years. Since, moreover, women fade earlier in the Orient, she cannot have intended to excite any carnal desire in Jehu. The haughty, imperious woman intended, rather, to go to meet the rebel in all the majesty of her position as queen-dowager, and to so far overawe him that he should desist from any further steps. She therefore takes her place at the lofty window of the palace, and shouts to him, as he enters the gate, the bold and haughty words in 2 Kings 9:31 : “Is it peace, Zimri, murderer of his master?” Luther translates [like the E. V.]: “Had Zimri peace, who slew his master?” Maurer supports this rendering by suggesting that she could not have asked him if he came in peace, at the same time that she called him a murderer of the king. But δωׁ ?μεν cannot have any different meaning here from that in 2 Kings 9:22 [where, as Bδhr explains it, it means, “Is there peace in the Syrian war?” or, “Dost thou bring news of a victory?”]. Jezebel connects with the question this meaning: “Wilt thou submit to me, the queen, and desist from the rebellion, or wilt thou persist in it?” [The reader will see that this interpretation, which makes δωׁ ?μεν mean, “Is there hostility between me and thee?” is not consistent with the author’s own exposition of 2 Kings 9:22. Jezebel must have felt that the hostility of Jehu reached to herself, even if she had not heard that his declaration of war was aimed, in its terms, exclusively at her. She had heard of the fate of the king, as the last part of her speech shows. She could not, therefore, have intended to ask Jehu if he came, in general, on a peaceful errand. This is perhaps the clearest instance of all, to prove that this formula had lost its etymological significance, and it must be apparent that the attempt to give it this meaning here produces inconsistency and confusion. It was a standing formula, empty of all independent meaning, used as an interjection in beginning an address: Ho! or Hail!—Just what she hoped to accomplish by her decorations, and by her address, it is difficult to see. Perhaps the safest conclusion is one founded upon her domineering and wilful character. These traits were developed in her to a tragical degree. She has scarcely a parallel either in history or poetry save Medea. Her last toilet was probably the consequence of a determination to die in full state, self-willed, arrogant, defiant to the last.—W. G. S.] There is a threat also in her words. Zimri, who murdered king Elah (1 Kings 16:10-18), reigned only seven days, and met with a frightful end. She means to terrify the violent rebel. “Thou shalt fall as did Zimri. Thy rule shall not endure!” Perhaps she had also taken measures of resistance, had collected about her those on whom she thought that she could rely, and was, therefore, all the more self-willed. Jehu’s reply, 2 Kings 9:32, Who is on my side? Who? seems to sustain this opinion. He gives her no answer whatever, still less does he submit to the influence of her manner; he knew well that no one would heartily support the hated and tyrannical woman. The two eunuchs, who were her immediate attendants, gave Jehu a sign, probably from another window, that they would join him and serve his purposes. They obeyed his command. [The “or” between “two” and “three” in 2 Kings 9:32 is not. in the text. It means either that two looked out first, and were immediately joined by another, or that two appeared at one window, and three at another (the latter is adopted by Stanley).—W. G. S.]—εַ ?ιִּ ?ψְ ?ξְ ?ρֶ ?πָּ ?δ, 2 Kings 9:33, literally: And he trode her under foot, not, however, “with his own feet” (Ewald). He caused her to be trodden under foot, i.e., the horses of his chariot trode upon her. Hence the Sept. and Vulg. have the plural συνεπάτησαναὐτήν, conculcaverunt eam (cf., Hom., Il., x. 432; xi. 534). 2 Kings 9:34. And when he was come in, &c. After Jezebel was slain, Jehu went into the palace, took possession of it, and refreshed himself, after the day of bloody labor, with food and drink. Then, not, according to Kφster’s fiction, at the banquet, but afterwards, he gave orders to see to the corpse of Jezebel and bury it. He calls her: this cursed woman, not “abusing her in his wrath” (Thenius), but as the originator of all the corruption which had now met with its fitting reward. Nevertheless, he does not wish to have her refused burial, for, he says, she is a king’s daughter. Not, therefore, because she was the wife of Ahab, the mother of Joram, and the grandmother of Ahaziah, but because she was the daughter of the king of Tyre and Sidon, she was to be spared the last ignominy of lying unburied (see note on 1 Kings 14:11). Polus: Forte sic fecit, ne invidiam et odium regum Zidoniorum in se inflammaret. When he was told that sepulture was no longer possible, he remembered also the remainder of the oracle which he had quoted in 2 Kings 9:26 (1 Kings 21:23). This shows that that was no prediction post eventum. He quotes the oracle freely, according to its sense, calling to mind particularly that portion of it which seemed to him the most important. This explains the use of ηֵ ?μֶ ?χ instead of ηֵ ?μ (see above, on 2 Kings 9:10 [and the Grammatical note on that verse]). Jehu did not intentionally bring it about that Jezebel had no sepulchre, i.e., that there was no spot which perpetuated her memory. This was ordained by God. The memory of her was to be rooted out (Psalms 34:16). AND ETHICAL1. The fall of the house of Ahab is one of the most important events in the history of the Israelitish monarchy, and is marked as such by the detailed and vivid description which we have of it. In order to understand it correctly and estimate it justly we must look at it from the stand-point of the Old Testament theocracy. The house of Ahab was not only devoted to the cultus of the calf-images of Jeroboam, but it had also (a thing which no other dynasty had ever done) formally introduced idolatry, murdered the prophets, and persecuted the worshippers of Jehovah. All attempts to draw it away from these evil courses had proved vain. We see from 2 Kings 10:18-28 how far the worship of Baal had taken possession of the kingdom of the ten tribes. As a result of intermarriage with the house of Ahab, the evil had spread to Judah also, and had been already fostered by two kings, Jehoram and Ahaziah. “According to all appearances, therefore, the corruption, which had already eaten so deeply into Israel, and which, in spite of all the opposition which the prophets had exerted, threatened to gradually destroy all the good influences which remained, was about to strike root also in Judah, the last stronghold of the religion of Jehovah, and thereby to destroy the very foundation of the Mosaic theocracy” (Eisenlohr, Das Volk Israel, ii. s. 192). The rule of the house of Ahab was, in very truth, the opposite of what the monarchy of Israel ought to have been. Instead of holding and maintaining (Deuteronomy 17:19-20) the laws and commandments of Jehovah, and, above all, the Mosaic law, the covenant upon which the existence of Israel, as the chosen people, rested, it destroyed, consciously and intentionally, the foundations of the Israelitish nationality, and was, therefore, a continual rebellion against Jehovah, the true and only king of Israel. The prolonged rule of this house would have drawn Israel down into heathenism, and would thereby have frustrated its destined influence on the history of the world. It would have been the end of Israel as the chosen people of God. The overthrow of this house had become a matter of life and death for the Old Testament theocracy as an institution, and a necessity, if God’s redemptive plan with Israel was ever to reach its consummation. It had been threatened many times with destruction, and, after it had shown itself during forty years incapable of reformation, the time was come at last when it was to meet the fate with which it had been threatened. It was so decreed in the counsels of Him who raises up and puts down kings, who has power over the kingdoms of men, and gives them to whomsoever He will (Daniel 2:21; Daniel 4:14; Daniel 4:31). Here, therefore, the question of the justifiableness of rebellion against a legitimate dynasty, or of revolution in the ordinary sense of the word, cannot arise. The course of the house of Ahab was a rebellion against all law, divine and human, in Israel. It was, therefore, a revolution which was being brought about by those in authority. Therefore it resulted in a catastrophe which was not the overthrow of divine and human order, but rather its restoration. All the details of the occurrence must be weighed from this stand-point. 2. The long-threatened downfall of the house of Ahab is the work of the prophet Elisha, in so far that he gave the order to anoint Jehu king. His name therefore stands at the head of the narrative, and whereas, in other places, his name stands either alone or with the epithet, “man of God,” here we find him expressly called “the prophet,” in order to show that he did what is here recorded of him as a prophet, i.e., by virtue of his prophetical calling; as one, therefore, who, as he himself solemnly declares (1 Kings 17:1), stands, like Elijah, “before Jehovah,” and, as an immediate servant of God, acts in His name and by His authority. Thereby we are pointed, from the outset, to the grand difference between the fall of the house of Ahab and that of the other earlier or later dynasties. While the latter were all over-thrown by military chiefs, whose only concern was to arrive at power, the fall of the house of Ahab was brought about by the prophet, and did not aim at the gratification of ambition, but at the uprooting of the idolatry which had been introduced and fostered by this family. The first and chief duty of the prophets, before all, of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha, consisted in bearing witness by word and deed against the radical evil, idolatry, in combating it by every means, and in plucking it up by the roots. Jehovah had appointed them “watchmen over His people,” and armed them by His Spirit for this work, in order that the great object of the choice of this one people out of all the nations of the earth (Exodus 19:3-6), i.e., its destined influence in the history of the world, might not be frustrated (Habakkuk 2:1; Ezekiel 3:17; Ezekiel 33:7; Jeremiah 6:17; Jeremiah 6:27). The words which Jeremiah heard, when he was called to be a prophet: “See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant” (Jeremiah 1:10; cf. Jeremiah 18:7; Ezekiel 43:3; Ezekiel 32:18), hold true of all true prophets. They appear, therefore, as Knobel (der Proph. der Hebr., i. s. 196 sq.) justly observes, not only as heralds of the acts of God, but also as executors of them, and things are often ascribed to them which in truth were done, and could be done, by God alone (see Exeg. on 1 Kings 19:15-18, and, besides the places already quoted, Jeremiah 5:14; Jeremiah 25:15; Hosea 6:5). It was therefore the right and duty of the prophet Elisha, when idolatry had been pushed to the utmost, and every attempt to bring the house of Ahab into other courses had failed, by virtue of his prophetical office and calling, to labor to bring about the fall of that dynasty and the foundation of another. Far from being a sinful and rebellious undertaking, what he did was, for all Israel, as Eisenlohr himself admits, “an act of salvation.” 3. The anointing of Jehu is generally regarded, as it is by Keil, as the fulfilment of “the last of the commissions which Elijah received at Horeb” (1 Kings 19:16). But the correct interpretation of that passage (see notes thereon) makes this explanation unnecessary; and it is moreover to be noticed, that such an explanation presupposes that Elijah commissioned his successor to do something which he was commanded to do, and which he might have done, since Jehu was already, in the lifetime of Elisha, in the train of Ahab (2 Kings 9:25), but which he nevertheless did not do. There is no hint in the text that this act of Elisha was a fulfilment of that command to Elijah, and it is not consistent with the universal and unconditional obedience of Elijah. [The discrepancy between this chapter and 1 Kings 19:16 in this particular must be frankly admitted. Even a superficial examination will show that, between the two, this passage contains the historical account of the share of the prophets in Jehu’s revolt.—W. G. S.] It is still more improbable that Elisha should not have executed a commission which had been given him, as is suggested, by Elijah, but should have commissioned another, a prophet-disciple, to do it. Von Gerlach thinks that the “already aged Elisha” did this, because “he was bent with age;” but Elisha did not die until Joash was on the throne (2 Kings 13:14), so that he lived for at least forty-three years after Jehu was anointed. Accordingly, at the time of that event, he was not fifty years old. Neither can the reason which Krummacher assigns be maintained: “Nothing could have been more distasteful to the loving and evangelical disposition of Elisha than the command, in his own person, to put the avenging sword into the hands of Jehu. So God, who, father-like, weighs with the most tender anxiety what He may demand of each one of His children, and what not, exonerated him from this duty, and allowed him to send one of the prophet-disciples in his place.” The narrative itself shows us the reason clearly. The prophet-disciple was commanded to lead Jehu into an inner chamber, and, after anointing him, to depart immediately, without speaking a word to any one. The important transaction was, therefore, to be carried out in private, and to be kept as secret as possible. This was the reason why Elisha did not take it in hand himself, for if he, the well-known head of the prophet-guild, had gone to Ramoth and had had dealings with Jehu, it would have occasioned great observation, and the cause of his coming could not have been kept secret. The affair was to be kept quiet for a time, and only to be proclaimed when the right time should come according to the leadings of Providence, just as, at a former time, the communication of the prophet Ahijah to Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:29 sq.) was not to be made public, and Jeroboam had to wait until the right moment for his elevation came (see Hist. § 3 on 1 Kings 11:14-43). Therefore also Jehu did not at once make known to his fellow-commanders what had been done, but gave them an evasive answer. When they pressed him, he broke silence and thought that the right time had come. Elisha limited his own action strictly to the announcement of the destiny which awaited Jehu. All the rest he left to the control of Providence, so we hear no more of him until his death (chap. 13.).—As for the act of anointing, it was not performed with “the sacred oil of anointing” (Menzel), as in the case of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 1:39; cf. 2 Kings 11:12; 2 Kings 23:30), for, in the kingdom of the ten tribes, where there was no sanctuary of Jehovah, and where the levitical priesthood did not exist, it appears that the kings were not anointed at all. It was not, therefore, a priestly act which Elisha in this case executed, but a prophetical one, i.e., a symbolical act, a physical sign and testimony of that which Jehovah has determined upon and will do. Hence it is accompanied by the words: “Thus saith the Lord: I anoint thee,” &c. (2 Kings 9:3-6), just as in 2 Kings 2:21, where the prophet throws the salt into the fountain with the words: “Thus saith the Lord: I have healed these waters” (see pp. 17, 25). For the significance of the act of anointing, when it is ascribed to Jehovah himself, see above, note on 1 Kings 19:15-18. 4. What Schlier (Die Kφnige in Israel, s. 207) says of the newly-anointed king Jehu, holds true. “There are few persons in the sacred history who have been so variously judged as he. To some he is a stirrer up of rebellion and a bloody despot; others see in him a pure and unimpeachable servant of the Lord. Both equally err, for both depart alike from what the sacred record declares, and all depends, especially in the case of Jehu, on allowing ourselves to be led simply by the record.” If we restrict ourselves to what is said in chap. 9, this much is certain, that he did not make himself king. There is not a word to justify the suspicion that he plotted and conspired before he was anointed king; on the contrary, the story shows clearly that the prophetical calling to be king surprised and astonished him, and also that his fellow-commanders knew nothing of it. He ought not, therefore, to be put in the same category with Baasha, Zimri, Shallum, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea (1 Kings 15:27; 1 Kings 16:9; 1 Kings 16:16; 2 Kings 15:10-30), who, instigated by ambition, without authority and in self-will, took the royal power into their hands. He was called to be king by the prophet, in the name of Jehovah. The explanation of the selection of just this man, as the instrument for the destruction of the house of Ahab, and for the uprooting of idolatry, is found in the fact that at that time there was scarcely a man who united, as he did, all the necessary qualifications; so that Ewald also is forced to admit that “Elisha certainly could not have fixed his eye upon a military chief who was better fitted for the purpose he had in view.” In the first place, Jehu was a decided opponent of idolatry and of the abuses which were connected with it (2 Kings 9:22). The opposition of the prophet Elijah to Ahab and Jezebel, after the murder of Naboth, had made an indelible impression upon him, so that he had not forgotten the words of the prophet sixteen years afterwards (2 Kings 9:25; 2 Kings 9:36). This was the first characteristic which was required. Jehu possessed the second also. He was a man of the greatest energy. Pushing onward with boldness and enterprise, decided and pitiless, he shrank back before no difficulty (2 Kings 9:20; 2 Kings 9:24; 2 Kings 9:32 sq.). Moreover, he did not lack prudence or wisdom (2 Kings 9:11; 2 Kings 9:15; 2 Kings 9:18). Finally, he stood high in the popular esteem as a military leader. After Joram left Ramoth he seems to have had supreme command of the army. We see from the joy with which his fellow-commanders caught up his nomination and anointment, and from the readiness with which they obeyed his commands, that he enjoyed their fullest confidence (2 Kings 9:14-16). It is true that his subsequent conduct is fierce and soldier-like; that was the natural product of his character, calling, and education. “To drive like Jehu” has become a proverb. We ought not to overlook the fact, however, that nothing was to be accomplished here by mild and kind means. If the deep-rooted evil of idolatry, which threatened Israel with total ruin, was to be rooted out, it could not be done without violence. Moreover, we have to notice that Jehu, when Joram came to meet him, did not shoot him down at once, but, is answer to his question: “Is it peace?” declared that, so long as his mother, Jezebel, nourished shameful idolatry in Israel, there was no chance for peace and prosperity in the kingdom. Upon this absolutely true declaration of Jehu, Joram turned and cried “Treason,” and took to flight, so that he took sides with his idolatrous mother. Not until this point did Jehu send the death-arrow after the flying king (who sought to reach Jezreel, and to join her), and give orders to pursue Ahaziah, who came with Joram, and who likewise took Jezebel’s part. As Joram fell upon the very spot of ground which had been taken from the murdered Naboth, Jehu, who saw in this incident a dispensation of God, felt encouraged to proceed with his fierce task. So too, he did not slay Jezebel without further delay, but only when she put herself in opposition to him, and shouted down to him her impudent defiance, and insulted him as another Zimri, i.e., as a murderer and traitor, did he call out to “throw her down.” [Jehu came to Jezreel on purpose to put to death the king and the queen-dowager. Of the particular circumstances in which he should meet them, or of the accident which was going to throw in his way the king of Judah, another member of the house of Ahab, he could know nothing beforehand. Ewald thinks that he had had half-formed plans in his mind ever since the time when he heard the prophet’s denunciation of Ahab, but Bδhr is more correct, according to the text before us, when he supposes that the visit of the prophet and his business took Jehu by surprise. Whether this incident only came to ratify and bring to a definite determination half-formed plans which Jehu had long cherished, is a secret of his inner life which probably few or none, even of his contemporaries, ever learned. Whether it came at the very crisis of time when the commanders of the army were disgusted with the king, and excited with admiration of Jehu, to suggest to them an act which perhaps no one had yet proposed in words, is also uncertain, but it is a theory which is thoroughly consistent with the text. When Jehu had told them what the prophet had done, it was only a suggestion, something which might be neglected and allowed to fall and be forgotten. But the other generals caught at the idea enthusiastically, and proceeded to act upon it by proclaiming Jehu king with all the solemnity which the means at hand would allow. The affair had now entered a new phase. One of the prophets of Jehovah, who were, as a matter of course, hostile to the reigning house, might nominate a new king and anoint him, and the event might be passed by as only another declaration of hostility from a well-known and uncompromising enemy; but to proclaim the new king was an overt act of treason, and all who participated in it must know that there was no receding from it, and that the reigning monarch could never overlook or pardon it. Jehu’s cunning and caution had been shown in the reply to the generals in 2 Kings 9:11, in which he tried, in the first place, to see if they were really the instigators of this proposition. Now that he was committed to an overt act, his promptness, decision, and energy showed themselves. “If it be your minds, if you are determined to take this step, then we must go forward at once. Let no one go out of the city to take news to Joram of what we have done.” He then set out himself for Jezreel. Between himself and the house of Ahab there was no possible compromise. He must gain the advantages of time and energy. He made no delay (this may be reckoned as a virtue on his part) in carrying out his purpose. He took circumstances as he found them, and carried out his intention as he best could. He unquestionably intended to destroy the whole house of Ahab when he returned to Jezreel. He could not tell what opportunities would offer, but it is clear that he meant to make opportunities if they did not come of themselves. He meant to get all the royal family into his hands and kill them. Bδhr’s idea that he waited until Joram had taken sides with Jezebel, and waited until Jezebel had insulted him, is suggested by a laudable desire to excuse him, but it is an invention. We can hardly repress some feeling of pity, even for Jezebel, in reading the bloody and tragical details, but pitilessness is a virtue in a man situated as Jehu was. He had a task to accomplish which led through blood, and he had to follow it. To waver from pity or from fear would have been equal treason to his calling. The sentimentality which forgets the crime in pity for the criminal is a modern and a “civilized” weakness. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ THIRD THE OF JEHU TO THE THRONE UNTIL THE OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL2 Kings 10-17FIRST SECTION the monarchy under jehu in israel and under athalia and joash in judah 2 Kings 10-12A.—The Reign of Jehu2 Kings 10:1-361 And Ahab had seventy sons in Samaria. And Jehu wrote letters, and sent to Samaria, unto the rulers of Jezreel [the city], to the elders, and to them that brought up [the guardians of] Ahab’s children, saying, 2Now as soon as this letter cometh to you, seeing your master’s sons are with you, and there are with you chariots and horses, a fenced city, also, and armor [weapons]: 3look even out the best and meetest of your master’s sons, and [that ye may] set him on his father’s throne, and fight for your master’s house. 4But they were exceedingly afraid, and said, Behold, two kings stood not before him: how then shall we stand? 5And he that was over the house [palace], and he that was over the city, the elders also, and the bringers up of the children, sent to Jehu, saying, We are thy servants, and will do all that thou shalt bid us; we will not make any [one] king: do thou that which is good in thine eyes. 6Then he wrote a [second] letter the second time [omit the second time] to them, saying, If ye be mine [on my side], and if ye will hearken unto my voice, take ye the heads of the men your master’s sons, and come to me to Jezreel by to morrow this time. [(]Now the king’s sons, being seventy persons, were with the great men of the city, which brought them up[)]. 7And it came to pass, when the letter came to them, that they took the king’s sons, and slew seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent him them to Jezreel. 8And there came a messenger, and told him, saying, They have brought the heads of the king’s sons. And he said, Lay ye them in two heaps at the entering in [entrance] of the gate until the morning. 9And it came to pass in the morning, that he went out, and stood, and said to all the people, Ye be righteous [just]: behold, I conspired against 10my master, and slew him: but who slew all these? Know now [therefore] that there shall fall unto the earth nothing of the word of the Lord, which the Lord spake concerning the house of Ahab: for the Lord hath done that which Hebrews 11 spake by his servant Elijah. So [And] Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men, and his kinsfolks [intimate friends], and his priests [chief officers], until he left him none remaining [no survivor]. 12And he arose and departed, and came to Samaria. And [On the way,] as he was at the shearing house in the way [Shepherd’s House of Meeting], 13Jehu met with the brethren of Ahaziah king of Judah, and said, Who are ye? And they answered, We are the brethren of Ahaziah; and we go down to salute the children of the king and the children of the queen[-mother]. 14And he said, Take them alive. And they took them alive, and slew them at the pit of the shearing house [House of Meeting], even two and forty men; neither left he any of them. 15And when he was departed thence, he lighted on Jehonadab the son of Rechab coming to meet him: and he saluted him, and said to him, Is thine heart right [verily sincere], as my heart is with thy heart? And Jehonadab answered, It is [Verily, verily, it is]. If it be [said Jehu], give me thine hand. And he gave him his hand; and he took him up to him into the chariot. 16And he said, Come with me, and see my zeal for the Lord. So they [he] made him ride in his chariot. 17And when he came to Samaria, he slew all that remained unto Ahab in Samaria, till he had destroyed him, according to the saying of the Lord, which he spake to Elijah. 18And Jehu gathered all the people together, and said unto them, Ahab served Baal a little; but Jehu shall serve him much. 19Now therefore call unto me all the prophets of Baal, all his servants, and all his priests; let none be wanting: for I have a great sacrifice to do to Baal; whosoever shall be wanting, he shall not live. But Jehu did it in subtilty, to the intent that he might destroy the worshippers of Baal. 20And Jehu said, Proclaim a solemn assembly for Baal. And they proclaimed it. 21And Jehu sent through all Israel: and all the worshippers of Baal came, so that there was not a man left that came not. And they came into the house of Baal; and the house of Baal was full from one end to another [wall to wall]. 22And he said unto him that was over the vestry, Bring forth vestments for all the worshippers of Baal. And he brought them forth vestments. 23And Jehu went, and Jehonadab the son of Rechab, into the house of Baal, and [he, (Jehu)] said unto the worshippers of Baal, Search, and look that there be here with you none of the servants of the Lord, but the worshippers of Baal only. 24And when they went in to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings, Jehu appointed [stationed] fourscore men without, and said, If [Whoso letteth—omit if] any of the men whom I have brought into your hands escape, he that letteth him go, his life shall be for the life of him [he shall pay for it, life for life]. 25And it came to pass, as soon as he [they] had made an end of [completed the preparations for] offering the burnt offering, that Jehu said to the guard and to the captains [royal foot-guards and horse-guards], Go in, and slay them; let none [not one] come forth. And they smote them with the edge of the sword; and the guard and the captains [foot-guards and horse-guards] cast them out, 26and went [pressed through] to the city [strong-hold] of the house of Baal. And they brought forth the images out of the house of Baal, and burned them. 27And they brake down the image of Baal, and brake down the house of Baal, and made it a draught house [privy] unto this day. 28, 29Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel. Howbeit, from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, Jehu departed not from after them, to wit, the golden calves that were in Beth-el, and that were in Dan. 30And the Lord said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well [been zealous] in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel. 31But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart: for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, which made Israel to sin. 32In those days the Lord began to cut [off parts from] Israel short [omit short]: and Hazael smote them in all the coasts [along the entire frontier] of Israel; 33from Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the river Arnon, even Gilead and Bashan. 34Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 35And Jehu slept with his fathers: and they buried him in Samaria. And Jehoahaz his son reigned in his stead. 36And the time that Jehu reigned over Israel in Samaria was twenty and eight years. AND 2 Kings 10:1. Seventy sons in Samaria, &c. 2 Kings 10:3 shows (“your master’s sons”) that the grandsons of Ahab are included, for the “master” cannot mean Ahab, who had been dead for twelve years, but Joram. We must understand the words as referring to all the male descendants of Ahab.—To Samaria, to the rulers of Jezreel. 2 Kings 10:5 shows who are meant, viz., he who was over the house (palace), and he who was over the city; and we may understand it to refer to Samaria, which was the capital and the residence of the king, and not to Jezreel, which only served as summer residence of the court. The governors, who were the highest officers in Samaria, cannot possibly have been the “rulers of Jezreel,” for these could have had no authority in Samaria. The word ιִ ?ζְ ?ψְ ?ςֶ ?ΰμ is entirely wasting in the Sept. and Vulg. The former have πρὸςτοὺςἄρχονταςτῆςπόλεωςκαὶ πρὸςτοὺ ?̀ςπρεσβυτέρους; the latter has: ad optimates civitatis et ad majores natu. Keil, therefore, conjectures that ιִ ?ζְ ?ψְ ?ςֶ ?ΰμ is an error δָ ?ςִ ?ιψΰֶ ?μ, This is favored by δַ ?ζְּ ?χֵ ?πִ ?ιν, before which, since it cannot be taken as an apposition to ΰֶ ?μ ,ωָׂ ?ψֵ ?ι must certainly be supplied. This seems better than, with Clericus, Michaelis, and Ewald, to change ιִ ?ζְ ?ψְ ?ςֶ ?ΰμ into ιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ, or, with Thenius, to adopt the conjecture that there stood in the original text: “He sent from Jezreel to the rulers of Samaria.” The ΰֹ ?ξְ ?πִ ?ιν are the tutors appointed by Ahab for his sons. 2 Kings 10:2. Only the main point of Jehu’s letter is given (2 Kings 5:6). It is not necessary to understand that this letter was a “trick,” or “irony,” or “scorn,” as is generally done; it rather expresses contrariness or perversity. Its meaning may be expressed thus: “I am king; but if you, who have chariots and horses and weapons in your power, want to put a prince of Ahab’s house on the throne, commence a war with me.” [The letter is very characteristic in its form. It is composed in that comprehensive satire which says much in a few words. It implies self-confidence so great that the writer can afford to tantalize the reader with an apparent command of the situation, and an apparent freedom of choice, which in reality he has not got. It implies also a threat of consequences if the readers are sanguine enough to choose the policy of resistance. If on the other hand they choose the policy of submission, they will find out what they have to do to please the new ruler. It is a satirical and scornful challenge.—W. G. S.] As Jehu was well known to them by reputation as one of the boldest and bravest generals, and no one of them felt competent to meet him, they became frightened, and surrendered at once; all the more readily when they heard what he had already done. It was very cautious of him not to go himself immediately, with his small force (2 Kings 9:17), against the strongly fortified city of Samaria, but to first write them threatening letters, so as to find out what disposition he must expect to find in the capital. 2 Kings 10:6. Then he wrote a second letter, &c. The reason why Jehu not only commands to put to death the sons of Ahab, but also to bring their heads, at the same hour the next day, to Jezreel, which was nine hours, journey from Samaria, is plain from 2 Kings 10:9-10. It was important for him to be acknowledged, by the people as king as soon as possible. The people were to be convinced by the sight of the heads that all who might eventually become pretenders to the crown were dead, and also that the rulers and the great men of the kingdom, who had sent these heads, had thereby broken utterly with the dynasty of Ahab.—The parenthesis in 2 Kings 10:6 is not to be translated according to the massoretic punctuation: “The king’s sons were seventy persons,” for this would be an entirely superfluous repetition of 2 Kings 10:1. It means rather that the sons, mentioned in 2 Kings 10:1, resided with these important persons (ΰֶ ?ϊ is not a sign of the nominative, but a preposition: “with”), and that this is the reason why the command was addressed to them. 2 Kings 10:8. Jehu ordered the heads to be brought to the entrance of the gate, because the people were accustomed to assemble there. It is an old oriental custom to cut off the heads of slain enemies, and then to show these publicly, 2Ma 15:30; 1 Samuel 17:54 (cf. Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 681). Even now, in the Orient, the heads of those who are beheaded are placed upon the gate, in order that they may be seen by all. 2 Kings 10:9 sq. And said to all the people, &c. The sight of the seventy heads very naturally produced consternation among the people, probably also dissatisfaction and complaints against Jehu, the supposed cause of their death. Thereupon he appeared before the people in order to soothe them. He does not attack them rudely, but appeals to their just judgment. Ye are just; i.e., not, “Ye insist upon it that ye are right” (Luther); nor: “Ye are righteous,” i.e., “I declare you guiltless” (Richter); nor: “Now is the sin of the people atoned for, now are ye once more righteous before God; the punishment began through me, here ye see how it has gone on” (Gerlach). The sense is rather: “Ye are just, so judge yourselves; I have, it is true, made a conspiracy against Joram and killed him; but I did not kill these seventy. The rulers in Samaria, the friends of the house of Ahab, the tutors of the royal princes, killed these. If ye will lament and complain, ye have far greater reason to do so against them than against me, but consider that both I and they acted according to divine ordinance and in consequence of the sentence which Elijah, the great prophet, pronounced.” In all this, Jehu carefully conceals the main point, viz., that the murders were committed by his command. Perhaps he saw a providential dispensation in the very fact that the rulers at Samaria yielded to him at once, and executed his further commands from fear. His speech had the desired effect. The people ceased their complaints and resigned themselves contentedly. He was thereby encouraged to go farther, and to put to death all the higher officers and friends of the house of Ahab, as is recorded in 2 Kings 10:11. The ξְ ?ιֻ ?γָּ ?ρρςָ ?ιε are not Ahab’s relatives (Luther, E. V.), but his friends and intimate companions. In like manner λֹ ?δֲ ?πָ ?ιε are not his “priests” (Keil), but, as in 2 Samuel 8:18 and 1 Kings 4:5, his highest officers and servants. The turn of the idolatrous priests came later (2 Kings 10:18 sq.). Not until after this had all taken place, did Jehu go to Samaria, where he no longer needed to fear any opposition (2 Kings 10:12). 2 Kings 10:12. At the Shepherd’s House of Meeting. “The Chaldee version has αֵּ ?ιϊλְּ ?πִ ?ιωַׁ ?ϊψַ ?ςֲ ?ιָ ?ΰ, the meeting-house of the shepherds, so that it was probably a house which stood alone, and which served the shepherds of the region round about as a place of assembling. The commonest interpretation is, binding-house (where the shepherds tied up their sheep for the shearing), but opposed to this is the fact that the shearing and not the binding is the main point in that connection, and moreover, that the shearing took place, according to Genesis 38:12; 1 Samuel 25:2; 2 Samuel 13:23, in the separate localities, and not at one place for an entire district” (Thenius). 2 Kings 10:13. Instead of Brethren of Ahaziah, 2 Chronicles 22:8 has: “Sons of the brethren of Ahaziah.” Considering the comprehensiveness of the signification of ΰָ ?η, this is no contradiction. We must understand in general cousins and relatives of Ahaziah. They undertook the journey to Jezreel, as they themselves say in 2 Kings 10:13, μִ ?ωְׁ ?μεֹ ?ν ad salutandum, in order to make a friendly visit at the court there. The fact that they came in such a large number shows clearly that Joram, at this time, no longer lay ill from his wound, but was already recovered, as we saw also from 2 Kings 9:21. They expected to enjoy a pleasant visit, and knew nothing of what had occurred since they last heard from the court of Joram. When Jehu heard who they were and whither they were going, he called to his retinue: Take them alive; i.e., take them captives. Perhaps they would not submit to be captured, and undertook, as many suppose, to defend themselves, whereupon he caused them to be slaughtered. There is no ground whatever for the notion which Duncker adopts, that he did this in “the hope of getting possession of the kingdom of Judah also.” There is no sign anywhere of any such intention on the part of Jehu. Evidently his purpose was, by slaying these relatives of Ahab, who, as their journey showed, were friends and retainers of the house of Ahab, to make every attempt at blood-vengeance, or at the overthrow of his royal authority, impossible. 2 Kings 10:15. He lighted on Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, &c. No one doubts that this is the same Jehonadab who, according to Jeremiah 35:1-19, gave to the so-called Rechabites their stern, nomadic rules of life, and whom they there call their “father.” Josephus says of him: ἀνὴρἀγαθὸςκαὶ δίκαιος, ’Ιωνάδαβοςἄνομαφίλοςαὐτῷ [’Ιηνοῦ ?] πάλαιγεγονώς. It is uncertain whether his meeting with Jehu was accidental, or whether Jehonadab came on purpose to meet him. According to the Hebrew text Jehu saluted him and said: Is thine heart right, &c. According to Josephus, Jehonadab saluted Jehu, and commenced to praise him, because he had done everything according to the will of God for the rooting out of the house of Ahab. Jehu called upon him to mount into the chariot, and to ride with him to Samaria, saying that he would show him how he would spare none of the wicked, but would punish the false prophets and priests and all who had misled the people to the abandonment of Jehovah, and to the worship of false gods. He said that it was the most beautiful, and, for an honorable and just man, the pleasantest sight to see the punishment of the wicked. Jehonadab, prevailed upon by this, mounted the chariot and came to Samaria.—Doubtless some such conversation preceded the words: “Is thine heart right,” &c. At any rate, Jehonadab was a zealous servant of Jehovah, and, therefore, also an opponent of the house of Ahab. As he also stood at the head of a religious community, it was of great importance for Jehu to have him on his side, and to be accompanied to Samaria by him. It was a mark of high esteem to invite him to mount into the chariot.—ΰֶ ?ϊ before μְ ?αָ ?αְ ?κָ [is used to form an accusative of specification, equivalent to a nominative absolute. “Is it right, as to thy heart,” or “Thy heart, is it right”=“Is thy heart right.” The form gives peculiar emphasis], see Ewald, Lehrb., § 277 d. “ιָ ?ωָׁ ?ψ here involves the idea of a sincere agreement in feeling” (Thenius). Almost all the versions render εַ ?ιַּ ?ψְ ?λִּ ?αεּ, 2 Kings 10:16, as if they had read εַ ?ιַּ ?ψְ ?λִּ ?ια, i.e., “He made him ride.” According to 2 Kings 10:17, the first thing which Jehu did in Samaria was just what he had done in Jezreel (2 Kings 10:11). After the entire house of Ahab had been destroyed, he went on to overthrow the worship of Baal. 2 Kings 10:18. And Jehu gathered all the people together, &c. The fact that Jehu was believed, when he said that he would serve Baal far more than Ahab had done, is explained by the consideration that his entire enterprise was regarded as a military revolution, like that of Baasha and Zimri, in which the thing at stake was the supreme power and the throne, not a religious reform and the restoration of the service of Jehovah. No one any longer thought of that as a possibility.—On the prophets of Baal, 2 Kings 10:19 sq., see note above on 1 Kings 18:19.—ςֲ ?φָ ?ψָ ?δ, 2 Kings 10:20, is not “feast-day” (Vulg. diem solemnem) but a solemn festal assembly, as in Isaiah 1:13; Joe 1:14; Amos 5:21.—The “House of Baal” is the one built by Ahab (1 Kings 16:32), which seems to have been a large and rambling structure, in which were 450 priests of Baal and 400 of Astarte.—τֶּ ?δμָ ?τֶ ?δ, 2 Kings 10:21, strictly, mouth to mouth, or opening to opening, i.e., as far as it was open, as much as it could hold. It refers to the outer court in which the altar of sacrifice stood, for the house, strictly speaking, that is, the sanctuary or shrine in which the statue of Baal was, was, as in all temple structures, very small.—ξֶ ?μְ ?ϊָּ ?ηַ ?δ, 2 Kings 10:22, occurs only here, but means, unquestionably, vestiarium (Ges., Thes., p. 764). Thenius thinks, because the king here gave especial commands, that “we must understand it to refer to the stores of festal garments in the palace, not to the wardrobe of the temple of Baal, or to especial sacrificial dresses of all who took part in the ceremony.” However, the king ordains everything here; it was he who planned the feast. Neither before this nor afterwards is there any reference to anything but the house of Baal, and certainly there were priestly garments in that, just as the dresses of the priests of Jehovah were preserved in the temple at Jerusalem (Braun, De Vest. Sacerdot., ii. 26, p. 675). Clericus says that, in Ethiopic, ΰμϊη, with which ξμϊηδ is connected, means vestis byssina. Garments of byssus were the peculiar dress of priests in all ancient countries (Symb. des Mosaischen Kult, ii. s. 87 sq.). According to Josephus, it was especially important for Jehu that all the priests of Baal Should be there. They all received priestly garments, and became thereby all the more easily recognizable for the eighty men who were commanded to slay them before all others. 2 Kings 10:23. And Jehu went, and Jehonadab, &c. When they came into the outer court of the temple, Jehu gave orders to examine carefully and see whether there were any of the servants of Jehovah there. He thereby gave himself the appearance of a strict adherent of Baal; but his object was to take care that no servant of Jehovah should be killed. There is no foundation for Ewald’s representation of the incident: “Jehu gave orders that the feast should be celebrated with all pomp, just as a powerful man may show himself open-handed towards mysteries into which he desires to be admitted. He commanded that garments should be given to all who had not any such as were proper for the feast. When the time for the solemnity approached, he commanded with severity that any servants of Jehovah should be cast out. (It is well known what an importance the heathen attached to the procul profani! in their mysteries.) Finally he sacrificed with his own hand as if he were a most zealous worshipper of Baal.” Eisenlohr, who always follows Ewald, thinks that 2 Kings 10:22 refers to “the unchaste garments woven by the Kedeshoth” [women who prostituted themselves in the service of Astarte]. But we know nothing at all of any mysteries of Baal. There is no syllable of reference to any such thing here, much less of reference to any intention, which was even pretended, of initiating the king. Nor does the text say that Jehu himself sacrificed, and then gave the signal for the slaughter of all who were present. 2 Kings 10:25, λְּ ?λַ ?μֹּ ?ϊεֹ, cannot here be translated: “When he, Jehu, had finished,” nor, with some of the Rabbis and Keil: “When he (the sacrificing priest), had finished the burnt-offering.” The suffix εֹ is to be taken as equivalent to an indefinite subject, “one” (German, man) [commonly rendered in English by an indefinite plural, “they,” or by a passive construction]: “When they had completed the preparations for the sacrifice,” or, “When the preparations for the sacrifice were completed.” The Sept. give this same sense: ὡςσυνετέλεσανποιοῦντεςτὴνὁλοκαύτωσιν; and the Vulg. also, cum completum esset holocaustum. It is not therefore necessary to read λְּ ?λַ ?μְּ ?ϊָ ?ν as Thenius does (cf. Ew. § 294, b). As soon as they had completed the preparations for offering. Not, when the sacrifice itself was over, for then the feast of Baal would have been at an end, but, at the moment when the sacrifice was just fully prepared, and was on the point of being offered, Jehu gave command to the “runners and riders,” i.e., to the royal body-guard and its officers (see note on 1 Kings 1:38; 1 Kings 9:22; 1 Kings 14:28) to force their way in. Ewald translates εַ ?ιַּ ?ωְׁ ?μִ ?λεּ: “And threw the corpses aside unburied,” but of course it is plain that they could not undertake to bury them at once. It did not need another sentence to tell us that they did not bury them as fast as they killed them. The interpretation: “They threw the corpses out of the temple,” is somewhat better, but the athnach with ηָ ?ψֶ ?α and the express repetition of the subject (“the runners and riders”) seem to indicate that a new sentence begins with ειωׁ ?μλε. This sentence does not, therefore, join immediately on to the preceding, but to what follows, and it is to be connected with εַ ?ιֵּ ?μְ ?λεּ. In this connection De Dieu translates: proripuerunt se cum impetu et festinatione, and Thenius: “And the guards pressed forward.” ωׁ ?μκְ stands in this sense in 1 Kings 14:9. They threw the corpses behind them as they pressed forward, and forced their way through to the ςִ ?ιψ of the house. Under this we have not to understand a neighboring city (De Dieu and others), nor a particular district of the city of Samaria (De Wette, Maurer, and others), for this would not fit into the context. The fundamental signification of ςִ ?ιψ is sepimentum, munimentum, locus circumseptus (Fόrst, Concord., p. 805). It is then used for city, because every city, as such, was surrounded by a wall, and so formed a stronghold. In this place, however, it refers to that part of the entire sacred enclosure, which, in contrast with the outer courts, was firmly surrounded by a wall, the temple strictly speaking, in which was the chief image of Baal. This may have stood upon a base, and risen like a fortress from it, as the temple of Solomon did. On ξַ ?φְּ ?αεֹ ?ϊ see note on 1 Kings 14:23. We cannot determine whether they were small images of Baal himself, or images of other and inferior divinities. Movers (Rel. der Phφnizier, s. 674) thinks they were the πάρεδροι or σύμβωμοι of Baal. Thenius proposes to read ξַ ?φְּ ?αַ ?ϊ in 2 Kings 10:26, and ξַ ?φְּ ?αεֹ ?ϊ in 2 Kings 10:27, as the Sept. do, on account of the sing. surf. in ιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψְ ?τεּ ?δָ. It is to be noticed, however, that, the images were burned (2 Kings 10:26), so that they must have been of wood, while the chief image was “broken in pieces” (πϊυ), as the stone temple-building was. This image was therefore probably of stone, as indeed we might presume that the large image would be of stone and the smaller ones of wood rather than vice versa. The old expositors translate the suffix by unamquamque earum (Piscator). According to Keil the singular suffix refers to ξַ ?φְּ ?αεֹ ?ϊ, the plural being taken as an abstract, as in 2 Kings 3:3. [The latter is the correct explanation of the construction. Cf. Ew. § 317, a.] The destruction of this idol was perfectly in accordance with the law, Deuteronomy 7:5; Deuteronomy 7:25; Deuteronomy 12:2-3.—In order to make the destroyed temple a place forever unclean and abominable, they made it a sink or privy. (The Massoretes propose the word ξεֹ ?φָ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ, exits, as a euphemism.) Cf. Ezra 6:11; Daniel 2:5 (Rosenmόller, Morgenland, iii. s. 279). 2 Kings 10:28. Thus Jehu destroyed Baal, &c. This is here once more emphasized as the chief act of Jehu, but it is added that he persisted in the sins of Jeroboam, viz., the worship of the golden calves in Bethel and Dan. 2 Kings 10:30. And the Lord said unto Jehu, i.e., by a prophet, but whether by Elisha (Thenius), is very uncertain. δֱ ?θιαֹ ?ϊָ is correctly rendered by the Vulg. studiose egisti; Piscator: quia strenuum te pr�buisti ad faciendum, etc. He had an earnest will to execute the purposes of God (2 Samuel 13:28; Rth 3:7; Rth 3:10). The rooting-out of the house of Ahab and the attendant overthrow of idolatry, the latter of which not even Elijah had succeeded in accomplishing, were accomplished by Jehu. It was in truth an act of kindness toward Israel, which otherwise would, at this time, have gone to ruin. In so far Jehu had accomplished a great deed which is here recognized and acknowledged. The manner in which he carried it out, in all its details, is not, however, approved; especially is it recorded as unsatisfactory that he persisted in the worship of Jeroboam’s calves. Therefore it was announced to him that his dynasty should not reign beyond the fourth generation (Exodus 20:5; Exodus 34:7), cf. 2 Kings 15:12. 2 Kings 10:31 is not to be connected with 2 Kings 10:30 by “but,” but rather with 2 Kings 10:32. It states the occasion for what is narrated in 32 and 33. The threatened calamities from foreign foes came upon them through Hazael (2 Kings 8:12), because Jehu did not walk in the ways of the Lord with all his heart. [If we hold to the massoretic verse-division,—and there is no reason to abandon it, 2 Kings 10:30 is a promise of the throne during four generations as a reward for the vigor with which Jehu had carried out the task which was laid upon him, and not a warning that he should not keep it longer than that because he had kept up the worship of the calves. The “but” at the commencement of 2 Kings 10:31 is therefore quite correct. Although God commended Jehu and promised to reward him, yet Jehu did not walk perfectly with God. The origin of the calf-worship was political, and Jehu unquestionably kept it up for political reasons. While we certainly could not deny that the military misfortunes east of the Jordan were divine punishments, if the record said that they were such, yet in the absence of any such definite combination of the two things as cause and effect, we may leave that hypothesis aside, as something which we are not competent to decide. Such a revolution as this was certainly never accomplished without great internal commotion. Jehu found it necessary to consolidate his authority at home and could not give his attention to the foreign war. Hazael in the meantime was a very warlike and energetic king, and he pushed his conquests with vigor while his enemy was weak. We shall see below that this district was recovered when Israel once more was united and contented under a vigorous ruler (Jeroboam II.).—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 10:32. In those days the Lord began to cut off parts from Israel. Instead of μֲ ?χφּ ?εֹ ?ϊ, i.e. to cut off parts of, the Chald. and Arab. read μִ ?χְ ?φεֹ ?σ i e. to become enraged (Luther: όberdrόssig zu werden; Vulg. taedere super Israel). There is no ground, however, for changing the text, which is sustained by the Sept. (συγκόπτειν).—Along the entire frontier, not “in all the coasts” (Luther, De Wette, E. V.). The frontier country is, in general, the land beyond the Jordan, which was divided among the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh. Their territory formed the district which was also called Gilead. Aroer on the Arnon was the southern limit of the Israelitish territory east of the Jordan. These conquests of Hazael, therefore, extended to the frontier of the Moabites. The closing words: Even Gilead and Bashan [cf. Amos 1:3] are meant to show “that the land east of the Jordan, in all its extent, even to its farthest eastern limit, came into the hands of the enemy (Thenius). These conquests were made gradually, and they reached this extent at about the end of the twenty-eight years’ reign of Jehu.—On βְּ ?αεּ ?ψָ ?δ, 2 Kings 10:34, see 1 Kings 15:23. AND ETHICAL1. In regard to the reign of Jehu during the long period of twenty-eight years, the author gives only the summary at the end of the passage before us, viz., that he retained the calf-worship which Jeroboam had introduced, and that he lost a large portion of his territory, piece by piece, to Hazael of Syria. For all else he refers to the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. The destruction of the house of Ahab, and the abolition of idolatry, with which Jehu commenced his reign, are narrated with full details. It was these two things that made his reign remarkable, and that constituted it an epoch in the history of the Israelitish monarchy, and of the Old Testament theocracy. All other incidents or actions of his reign seem to this theocratical historian to be inferior in significance and importance to these. Duncker’s assertion is astonishing and it is false (Gesch. des Alt., i. s. 416): “The house of Omri, under which Israel had flourished and prospered, was overthrown and annihilated by a wild murderer whom the prophet of Jehovah had instigated.… Jehu was a good assassin, but a bad ruler and a bad general.… Although the prophets of Jehovah did not oppose him as they had opposed Ahab and Joram, but, on the contrary, Elisha’s authority and influence were lent to his support, yet Israel, under his reign, became weaker and weaker.” Under the house of Ahab, of which the shameless and fanatical Jezebel was the soul, the kingdom of Israel, so far from being elevated and prospered, had been shattered to its very foundations. Under this house Moab revolted, and Ahab and his successors never succeeded, even with the assistance of Judah, in completely conquering the Syrian arch-enemy, who continually threatened Israel and even brought it near to ruin (2 Kings 7:24). No fact can be cited from the record to prove that Jehu reigned for twenty-eight years wickedly, still less that he was a bad general; if he had been this latter, his fellow-commanders would never have proclaimed him king. Moreover, the record mentions his βְּ ?αεּ ?ψָ ?δ with especial emphasis (2 Kings 10:34), even adding λֹּ ?μ, which is not found elsewhere except in 1 Kings 15:23, and 2 Kings 20:20, and which Ewald correctly takes as referring to “his great and inexhaustible manly courage.” It is true that he saw himself compelled to give up to Hazael land after land on the east of the Jordan, but this may have been due partly to the superior strength of the Syrians, partly to the lack of assistance from Judah, such as Ahab and Joram had enjoyed, partly to the state in which the kingdom had been left by the house of Ahab. [It is a simple truism to say that he was defeated partly because his enemy was stronger than he, and partly because he did not have more help. It is not at all certain that Joram left the kingdom weak in material respects. If it was shattered morally, as it undoubtedly was, it would not long prosper materially, but, for a time, moral decay and material prosperity might co-exist. The fact that Joram’s last act was to collect an army and go into Gilead to try to recover Ramoth, even by a conflict with a general like Hazael, is certainly strong evidence that Israel was not weak in material and military force under his rule. A far more natural ground for Jehu’s inactivity (for all we know to the contrary) while Hazael was making these conquests, is the one suggested above in the note on 2 Kings 10:30 under Exegetical. That is, that the revolution was not accomplished so quickly as one might suppose on reading the only details of it which are here given, and that it was not accomplished by those few great and terrible blows which are alone mentioned here. To kill the royal family and mount the throne, to kill the priests of a certain religion, and put an end to the public performance of its rites, were comparatively easy things. We may be sure, however, that the house of Ahab had friends and supporters, and that Baal had worshippers who saw with sorrow his joyous worship give place to the austere religion of Jehovah. These elements of discontent had to be watched and time had to be spent in healing the wounds which the revolution had inflicted, before the state could be made docile, contented, and loyal at home, and reliable for campaigns abroad. It was during this interval that Hazael probably made his conquests.—W. G. S.] The author sees in the misfortunes east of the Jordan a divine judgment, because Jehu had persisted in the sins of Jeroboam, and had not fulfilled his appointed task. [See Exeg. notes on 2 Kings 10:31. Bδhr connects 2 Kings 10:31-32, but it is more correct to begin a new paragraph with 2 Kings 10:32 as the English translators do.] We do not learn in what relation the prophet Elisha stood to Jehu during his reign. Elisha’s name does not occur, as has been said above, from 2 Kings 9:1 to 2 Kings 13:14, where his death, in the reign of Joash, is mentioned. 2. The rooting-up of the house of Ahab, and the destruction of the worship of Baal, ought not to be measured by the New Testament standards, and ought not to be judged from a modern, humanitarian stand-point. As for the slaughter of Ahab’s family, it was customary in the Orient from the earliest times for the founder of a new dynasty to put to death, not only the deposed monarch, but also his descendants and relatives, especially all the males. We have several examples of this in these very books (1 Kings 15:29; 1 Kings 16:11; 2 Kings 25:7). Similar instances occur in the East even in our own day. This cruel conduct was connected, not only with their ideas of the solidarity of all blood-relations in one family, but also with the universal custom of blood-vengeance, according to which it appeared to the relatives of a murdered man to be their right and their duty to pursue and slay the murderer. Not seldom their vengeance extended to the whole family of the murderer (Genesis 34:30; 2 Samuel 14:7; 2 Kings 14:6). How wide-spread and deep-rooted the custom of blood-vengeance was, may be seen from the fact that the Mosaic law could not abolish it, but only limit it and restrain it, as was the case also in regard to polygamy (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 189). When, therefore, Jehu put to death all the adherents of the deposed dynasty, he did not commit an unheard-of crime, but only “followed the example of other founders of new dynasties” (Ewald). What is more, Ahab’s house had introduced and fostered idolatry, and it was not to be hoped that it could be absolutely rooted out, as long as there were still members of this family alive. The case is similar as regards his conduct toward the worship of Baal. The Israelitish constitution knew nothing of freedom of religion or of worship, but assigned the death-penalty for all idolatry (see 1 Kings 18, Hist. § 5). Jehu acted as little contrary to the law when he caused the servants of Baal to be put to death, as Elijah did in. 1 Kings 18:40. Nevertheless his mode of action is to be condemned, even from the Old Testament stand-point. He allowed himself to be carried away by his fierce, violent, soldierly, despotic disposition. He proceeded to extremes, and observed no limits. When he had once spilled blood, he thirsted for more, and thought that this thirst for blood was zeal for Jehovah. Especially did he fail in the matter of the cunning and deceit and falsehood which he employed. In Jezreel he pretended to the people that he was innocent of the murder of the seventy descendants of Ahab, although he had himself ordered it. In Samaria he declared that he was a zealous servant of Baal, in order that he might get all the servants of Baal into his power, and slaughter them all at once. Therefore also the prophet Hosea speaks of the “blood of Jezreel” which Jehovah will avenge upon the house of Jehu (Hosea 1:4). Krummacher asserts, in opposition to this prophetical declaration, as well as to the fact before us (Elisa, iii. s. 152): “Nevertheless he (Jehu) comes out from this horrible massacre pure, because he did not draw the sword in obedience to his own thirst for blood, but in the name of Him who ‘maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire’ [Psalms 104:4, where the translation is incorrect. It should read, “maketh winds his messengers, and flames his ministers.”—W. G. S.], and who had chosen Jehu as His executioner.” Lilienthal observes correctly (Die gute Sache der gφttl. Offenbarung, iv. s. 410): “An executioner does what is right when he takes the life of an evil-doer, at the command of the civil authority, and receives for this service his proper wages. But when he purposely torments and tortures the culprit, he deserves to be especially punished for it. Therefore blood-guilt is ascribed to Jehu, because it was a gratification to his fierce disposition to spill the blood of those who had indeed merited death, but who ought not to have been slain at the instigation of private hate.” Every attempt to wash Jehu clean from blood-guilt becomes, in spite of itself, a defence of falsehood and deceit in majorem Dei gloriam. Jehu was indeed a “Scourge of God,” but he certainly was not a “man of God,” as appears in the fact that, with all his pretended zeal for Jehovah, he nevertheless did not desist from the “sins of Jeroboam” as long as he ruled. The instruments of the divine punishments are not made “pure” by the fact that they are God’s instruments, but they are, in their turn, punished for their own sins; cf. Isaiah 10:5-7; Isaiah 10:12. [Would it not be a hard fate to be chosen to be an instrument of God’s vengeance, and then to be held to a strict account, if one’s human infirmities of judgment led one to overdo or to fall short in some points of the just execution of the task? The trouble is that Jehu in the first place gets credit for far more pure and hearty zeal for the restoration of the Jehovah-religion than he deserves, and then has to be correspondingly under-estimated. If we attempt, with all the light given us by the text, to estimate Jehu’s personal feeling in regard to this revolution, we shall reach the following conclusion: Jehu was a military man to whom the crown presented itself as an object of earthly ambition worth some effort. Supposing him to have been, by conviction, an adherent of the: religion of Jehovah, the call to him to put himself at the head of a reaction in favor of the Jehovah-religion, and the anointment to the royal office by a prophet of Jehovah, might move him to make the attempt. The adherence of the army determined him. When he had won his victory, he carried out faithfully the policy to which he was bound as leader of the Jehovah-party. He put an end to the worship of Baal. The crown, however, was his reward. It was a political reward, and he took political means to secure it. He slew all the possible pretenders to the crown from the house of Ahab, according to the oriental custom in such cases, as a means of securing himself on the throne. He stopped short with his religious reforms and did not destroy the golden calves; he left them for the same political reasons for which Jeroboam erected them, i.e., that the northern kingdom might have its own religious centres outside of Jerusalem. He saw in the revolution principally a gratification of his own ambition. He was willing to be the instrument of the overthrow of a wicked dynasty and a corrupt religion, and he stopped just where his personal interests were in danger of being impaired. It is not strange that his contemporaries rejoiced so much at the rescue of their ancestral religion that they were indifferent to the excesses by which Jehu tried to establish his royal power, nor that later and calmer judges, on the contrary, raised his bloodshed into prominence in judging of his career (Hosea 1:4).—See further, below, § 5.—W. G. S.] 3. In connection with the violent and bloody conduct of Jehu, the religious and moral condition into which the kingdom had been brought, under the dominion of the house of Ahab, is thrown into distinct relief. “What a shocking picture of demoralization, vulgarity, and slavery” (Eisenlohr) presents itself to us in the rulers, the elders, and the tutors of the royal princes, that is to say, among the highest officials and the most familiar frequenters of the court! Although the fortified city, with all the necessary means of defence, chariots, horses, and weapons, were still in their possession, yet not one energetic man could be found who would put himself at the head. Upon Jehu’s first letter, which did not even contain a command, but only a question, or, in a certain sense, only a challenge to resist, they all yielded timidly, like cowards. No one of them thinks of even moving a finger in behalf of the royal house, whose confidants, favorites, and servants they have been. They change their disposition with the change of events, and place themselves as instruments without will at the disposal of the new ruler, who had killed their king and master. Jehu would hardly have addressed this challenge to them if he had not been sure of their utter want of principle, and had not known that he had not the least independent opposition to fear from them. Then when he demands of them the very highest crime, the murder of the scions of the royal house, who have been entrusted to their care and their protection, they do not hesitate a moment; they slaughter the whole seventy in one night, and send their heads the next morning to Jezreel, in order to win the favor of the new ruler. If the conduct of the elders at Jezreel, when they slew Naboth at the command of Jezebel, testified to the deep corruption of the time (see 1 Kings 11, Hist. § 3), how much more does this behavior of those of the highest rank and office bear witness to the same. The religious decay was as deep as the moral decay. In the capital of the kingdom there was no sanctuary of Jehovah, but a fortress-like temple of Baal which Ahab had built (1 Kings 16:32), furnished with idols of wood and stone, and surrounded by large courts. In spite of the great day on Mount Carmel, where the people had solemnly declared for Jehovah, and had slain 450 priests of Baal (1 Kings 18:21 sq.), this temple remained standing, and the worship of idols continued to be, as it had been before, the prevailing religion of the kingdom. It appears, it is true, that Joram, at his accession, removed the statue of Baal (2 Kings 3:2), but he did not put a stop to the worship of Baal; and the feast of Baal which Jehu ordained, at which so many worshippers of the god were present from all parts of the kingdom that the extended courts of the temple were packed full, shows how numerous the worshippers of the god had already become again. To this point had Israel come, under the rule of the house of Ahab; since there had been any people of Israel, such a state of things had not existed. 4. The only facts in regard to Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, which can be deduced from this passage, are, that, at the time of the great apostasy under the house of Ahab, he was one of the most earnest opponents of that dynasty, and of the idolatry which it introduced; that he was a firm adherent of Jehovah, and moreover a man who was held in honor by the people, and highly esteemed by Jehu. From the 35th chapter of Jeremiah, we learn further that he stood at the head of a community, the so-called Rechabites, to which he had given peculiar rules of life, according to which they were not to live in houses, not to possess farms or vineyards, and not to drink-wine. They held so firmly to these rules that Jeremiah, 300 years later, could present them to the people, who were disobedient to the commands of Jehovah, as models of obedience. This is sufficient to prove that Jehonadab, although he was a contemporary of Elisha, and probably also of Elijah, yet stood in no direct connection with the prophet-communities which they managed (2 Kings 2:3 sq.), since these did not probably have any special rules of life, and certainly did not have those of the Rechabites. Neither is there any indication anywhere that he acted in concert with Elijah, who had caused Jehu to be anointed. This fact is what makes him important for the history of redemption. Ewald (Gesch., iii. 504 sq. [3d ed. 543]) explains this phenomenon by the theory that, after Elijah’s death, “new institutions of influence for the old religion” had been formed, viz., on the one hand, the so-called schools of the prophets, which prosecuted the objects which had been set before them by Elijah, and, on the other hand, “a society of those who despaired of being able to observe true religion undisturbedly, in the midst of the nation, with the stringency with which they understood it, and who, therefore, withdrew into the desert, and preferred, as all Israel had once done under Moses, the hardships of life in tents to all the fascinations of city-life. They borrowed from the Nazarites the principle of abstention from wine and all food connected with wine, and the ancient Kenites were their models for their tent-life.” He goes on to say that they were called Rechabites from the father of their founder, Jehonadab; that their oath was extended and made more stringent at a later time; that they only returned into ordinary social life at long intervals and under compulsion, etc. This theory, to which Eisenlohr and Thenius give their adhesion, is contradicted, first of all, by the fact that Jeremiah calls them βָּ ?ψִ ?ιν, i.e., strangers and sojourners in the land in which they dwelt. “They were not of the race of Israel, but were an offshoot of the family of the Kenites (1 Chronicles 2:55), which is traced back to Moses’ father-in-law (Numbers 10:29; Judges 4:11), and which migrated to Canaan (Judges 1:16), in friendship and alliance with Israel (1 Samuel 15:6). In this passage in 1 Sam. they appear as still unsettled. According to Judges 4:11; Judges 4:17 sq. they continued to be nomadic, as Rechab was also, even before Jehonadab’s regulation.…It is an established historical fact, which is further confirmed by the part. βψιν, that they were already nomadic.…Jehonadab only fixed by law what he already found as a generally observed usage, and thereby cut off beforehand all possible temptations to adopt a settled life” (Hitzig). The Rechabites call Jehonadab their “father” (Jeremiah 35:6; Jeremiah 35:8), but they do not thereby designate him as their ancestor (Winer and others). They only mean that he was their teacher and lawgiver, just as the prophet-disciples called Elijah their “father” (2 Kings 2:12). If they had originated with Jehonadab, they would have named themselves after him and not after his father. Moreover, it is certain that Rechab was not, strictly speaking, the father of Jehonadab, but the ancestor of the family to which he and the other Rechabites belonged. We must understand by this name, therefore, a national and nomadic community, and not Simply a religious organization. It was much older than Elijah, and not directly or indirectly an outgrowth of his activity. There is no hint in the history that other communities than the schools of the prophets were formed, after Elijah’s death, for the conservation of “true religion.” The most extraordinary feature is this, that a family, which did not belong to the race of Israel, maintained itself in separation and independence in the midst of this people from the entrance into Palestine until the fall of the kingdom, and was more completely devoted to the service of Jehovah than Israel itself. Jehonadab may have been led to give them fixed regulations of life by the growth of the idolatry which Ahab had introduced, and against which he desired to fortify them by a strict exclusion. The result was that he accomplished his object. He saw in Jehu a deliverer from the tyrannical and idolatrous dynasty, and he willingly accepted his invitation to accompany him to Samaria. He must have known of Jehu’s dissimulation in proclaiming the feast of Baal, and must have approved of it, for he was present with Jehu at it (2 Kings 10:23). Clericus justly observes: conscius rei erat, nec laudandus est hoc in negotio. Hess thinks that he belonged to the number of those who “hardly regarded it as an error in Jehu, that, in his zeal, he went too far, on account of their joy at the overthrow of the idolatrous dynasty.” It is worth noticing that Elisha, who had been the prime mover in raising Jehu to the throne, took no part in this proceeding. It seems that Jehu purposely did not call for his assistance, because he could not expect from him any approval of his falsehood and dissimulation. Jehonadab certainly does not appear here in the favorable light in which Krummacher represents him: “In fact, we hardly know what to praise most in this person, whether the soul, elevated and carried heavenward by divine inspiration, or the rare wisdom, which, in its rich measure, is so peculiar to him, or the clear, unwavering insight with which he commands everything, and which enables him to pass spiritual judgment upon all, or the foresight and care, as enlightened as tender, which we see him employ in behalf of his family and its interests for centuries to come.” Neither the passage before us nor Jeremiah 35 mentions with a syllable these grand characteristics. The further delineation is still more arbitrary and unfounded: “So they (Jehu and Jehonadab) sit together—a dark thunder-cloud softly enfolded in a rainbow of promise, as if Law and Gospel had been personified in living allegories: Jehu, the woe of God’s condemnation upon all godlessness; Jehonadab, the divine director to point upward to the throne of grace.… Jehonadab, the Church, which lives in heaven; Jehu, the State, which protects,” &c. 5. The continuance of the worship of the calves under Jehu shows that he was not fully in earnest in the zeal for Jehovah, of which he boasted to Jehonadab, otherwise he must have destroyed the golden calves in Bethel and in Dan, as well as the idols in the temple of Baal at Samaria. He did not let them stand because he considered that what he had done was enough “to satisfy the obligation (?) which he had undertaken towards the prophet of Jehovah” (Menzel). The reason was rather the same one which had led the founder of the kingdom of Israel, Jeroboam, to introduce the worship of these images (1 Kings 12:26 sq., and Hist. § 1). By abolishing the worship of the calves, Jehu would have torn down the partition between the two kingdoms and would have endangered his throne. His zeal for Jehovah did not go so far as this. His royal authority was more important to him than the law of Jehovah. Political and dynastic interests restrained him after he had extinguished the house of Ahab and abolished the worship of Baal. The manner in which he conducted himself in this matter showed that “he did not walk in the law of the Lord with all his heart” (2 Kings 10:31), and this became still clearer when he was firmly established on the throne. He is, therefore, it is true, praised for his zeal in rooting out and destroying the worship of Baal, but is, at the same time, declared guilty of the “sins of Jeroboam,” and this is given as the reason why Jehovah began, in his reign, to cut off provinces from Israel, and why his dynasty should have no firm duration. This criticism of his reign by the author of the history (who was probably one of the prophets) shows that the prophets of the time opposed the worship of the calves [although it was intended, in a certain way, as a worship of Jehovah], and did not simply, as Ewald asserts (see above, Pt. II. p. 35), combat the worship of false gods. [The view of these things entertained by the prophet-author of the Book of Kings, who lived at a much later period and under very different circumstances, cannot be regarded as any indication of the views of “the prophets of the time,” in regard to them.—W. G. S.] The great and bloody revolution of Jehu had, therefore, a merely negative result, namely, the abolition of the worship of false gods; the positive results, the restoration of the constitution, i.e., of the covenant of Jehovah, was prevented by political considerations, i.e., by personal ambition and love of power. It is another proof that a religious reformation can only fail of its objects and come to naught, so soon as political and dynastic interests get control of it, or, indeed, are involved in it. AND 2 Kings 10:1-27.—The two Chief Acts of King Jehu: (a) The destruction of the entire family of Ahab, 2 Kings 10:1-17; (b) the abolition of the worship of Baal, 2 Kings 10:18-27 (see the Hist. notes). 2 Kings 10:1. Wόrt. Summ.: Though a large family of children is a blessing of God (Psalms 127:3), yet we must not rely upon them, or be self-willed on that account, as if the family could not die out, but we must fear God, must not stain ourselves with sin against our consciences, and must bring up children in the fear of God, else He will take them away and destroy the entire family. Psalms 112:1-2. 2 Kings 10:1-7. The Governors and Chief Men at Samaria: (a) Their cowardice, (b) their blind slavishness, (c) their unfaithfulness.—Moral decline among the highest ranks of a nation generally proceeds from a corrupt court which sets the fashion (Ahab and Jezebel). As is the master, so is the servant.—He who has the power in his hands always finds instruments among the great and those of high rank, who shrink back from no demand which is made upon them, however much it may conflict with honor and duty.—Those who no longer fear God, must fear men. Fear of men may become the cause of the greatest crimes. Therefore the Lord says: (Matthew 10:28). 2 Kings 10:6-7. Wόrt. Summ.: Here we have an example of unfaithful tutors and governors and friends, who look, in their actions, not to the interests of the orphans, but to their own advantage, and let the orphans and their cause be ruined. As Jehu nevertheless destroyed them all (2 Kings 10:17), so will the just God also bring upon the heads of false friends and trustees, all the unfaithfulness which they inflict upon orphans: therefore, let such be warned against all violation of their trust.—Kyburz: The children of this world become traitors to one another, as we see in the case of these guardians of the royal children. How they probably promised with all zeal to guard the life, the honor, and the rights of these princes! Now, they themselves become their murderers. Let no man trust the golden words of him who fears man more than he fears God.—Unfaithfulness ruins those who practise it. Jehu must infer from the treason of these guardians towards their wards that they would still less be faithful to him. He, therefore, treated them as they treated those who had been entrusted to them.—Though the crime which these men perpetrated against their wards could hardly occur in our day, yet instructors and guardians are not wanting who become murderers of the souls of their pupils, in that they mislead them by example and precept into apostasy from the living God and disbelief in His holy word, instead of educating them in “the fear and admonition of the Lord.” (Cf. Matthew 18:6.)—Krummacher: What is the worth of all the friendship and favor and trust of this world! It is like a tree in soft, loose ground, which, so long as thou holdest it upright, covers thee pleasantly with its shadow, but which, when the storm roars through its top, and it is overthrown, no longer takes account of thee, but crushes thee in its fall. 2 Kings 10:8-11. Jehu’s Words to the People: (a) He says to the people just what they like to hear: “Ye are just;” (b) he throws the guilt off from himself on to others: “But who slew all these?” (c) he represents something which he had done himself as a divine dispensation: “The Lord hath done that which he spake,” &c.—He who has a good conscience may alone appeal to God’s word. Guard thyself from the great mistake of glossing over and justifying thy sins and errors by citations from the word of God.—Human sins are not justified by the fact that they are made means in the hand of God for accomplishing his judgments. 2 Kings 10:12-16. Jehu’s Journey to Samaria: (a) His meeting with the brethren of Ahaziah, 2 Kings 10:12-14; (b) his meeting with Jehonadab, 2 Kings 10:15-16. 2 Kings 10:12-13. The quiet and peaceful house of the shepherd becomes a house of terror and of death. Destruction overtakes the self-assured on their way to pleasure and joy!—Wόrt. Summ.: When we go out of the house, let us commit ourselves into the hands of God, for much may happen on our journey to prevent us from coming in life or happiness homeward (James 4:13-15). Ver 15. Jehonadab, son of Rechab, chief of the Rechabites (Jeremiah 35), is a type of faithful adherence to the faith and the customs of the fathers in the midst of an apostate, wavering people.—Decided and firm faith, combined with a strict and earnest life, compels respect even from those who themselves follow another course.—Where there is agreement in the highest and most important interests, there one may find a speedy and easy basis of intercourse, whatever may be the difference of rank or nationality.—Kyburz: Jesus says to me and thee what Jehu said to Jehonadab: If thine heart is right with mine, as mine with thine, then come up to me upon my throne (Revelation 3:21). 2 Kings 10:16. Zeal for the Lord is a great and rare thing, when it is pure. It forfeits its reward, however, when it aims to be seen (Matthew 6:1-6). How many a one deceives himself with his zeal for the Lord, and for His kingdom, when, at the bottom, he is zealous only for himself, for his own honor and fame, his own interest and advantage. 2 Kings 10:18-28. The great Feast of Baal at Samaria: (a) The preparation of it; (b) its finale.—A work which is in itself pure and holy loses its value when it is accomplished by falsehood and dissimulation. One cannot battle for the truth with the weapons of falsehood (Romans 3:8).—Berleb. Bibel: What things one may do by outward acts, and yet be internally a hypocrite! Jehu dissimulated in order to circumvent the hypocrites and idolaters, and never recognized the hypocrite and idolater in himself.—Jehu destroyed the worship of false gods by the sword, and by external violence. He had full justification for this in the Law, for, under the old covenant, idolatry was the worm at the root of the Israelitish nationality; it was high treason to the Israelitish state. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ B.—Athaliah’s Reign, and Fall2 Kings 11:1-20. (2 Chronicles 22:10 to 2 Chronicles 23:21.)1And [But] when [omit when] Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah [—when she] saw that her son was dead, [then] she arose and destroyed all the seed royal. 2But Jehosheba, the daughter of king Joram, sister of Ahaziah, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king’s sons which were [who were to be] slain; [,] and they hid him, even [omit from and to even: read and put] him and his nurse, [omit,] in the bed-chamber [store-room, and hid him] from Athaliah, so that he was not slain. 3And he was with her hid in the house of the Lord six years. And Athaliah did reign over the land. 4And the seventh year Jehoiada sent and fetched the rulers over hundreds, with the captains and the guard [centurions of the life-guards and of the runners] and brought them to him into the house of the Lord, and made a covenant with them, and took an oath of them in the house of the Lord, and shewed them the king’s Song of Solomon 5 And he commanded them, saying, This is the thing that ye shall do; A third part of [those of] you that enter in on the sabbath shall even be keepers of the watch of the king’s house; 6And a third part shall be at the gate of [omit of] Sur; and a third part at the gate behind the guard [runners] so shall ye keep the watch of the house, that it be not broken down [to prevent entrance]. 7And two parts of [omit two parts of] all [those of] you that go forth on the sabbath [—of both sorts of soldiers—] even they shall keep the watch of the house of the Lord about the king. 8And ye shall compass the king round about, every man with his weapons in his hand: and he that cometh within [breaketh through] the ranges [ranks] let him be slain: and be ye with the king as he goeth out and as lie cometh in. 9And the captains over the hundreds did according to all things that Jehoiada the priest commanded: and they took every man his men that were to come in on the sabbath, with them that should go out on the sabbath, and came to Jehoiada the priest. 10And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David’s spears and shields, that were in the temple of the Lord. 11And the guard stood, every man with his weapons in his hand, round about the king, from the right corner [hand wall] of the temple [house] to the left corner [hand wall] of the temple [house] along by [towards] the altar and the temple. 12And he brought forth the king’s son, and put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony; and they made him king, and anointed him; and they clapped their hands, and said, God save the king [lit. Live the king]. 13And when Athaliah heard the noise of the guardand of the people, she came to the people into the temple of the Lord. 14And when she looked, behold, the king stood by a pillar [was standing on a platform] as the manner was, and the princes and the trumpeters by the king, and all the people of the land rejoiced [were rejoicing] and blew [blowing] with trumpets: and Athaliah rent her clothes, and cried, Treason, treason. 15But Jehoiada the priest commanded the captains of the hundreds, the officers of the host, and said unto them, Have her forth without the ranges [through the ranks]; and him that followeth her kill with the sword. For the priest had said, Let her not be slain in the house of the Lord. 16And they laid hands on her [made room for her on either hand]; and she went by the way by the which the horses came into the king’s house: and there was she slain. 17And Jehoiada made a [the] covenant between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord’s people; between the king also and the people. 18And all the people of the land went into the house of Baal, and brake it down; his altars and his images brake they in pieces thoroughly, and slew Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars. And the priest appointed officers over the house of the Lord. 19And he took the rulers over hundreds, and the captains, and the guard, and all the people of the land; and they brought down the king from the house of the Lord, and came by the way of the gate of the guard [runners] to the king’s house. And he sat on the throne of the kings. 20And all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was in quiet: and [but] they slew [had slain] Athaliah with the sword beside [at] the king’s house. AND Introductory Remarks—The parallel account in the Chronicles is, in some places, word for word the same as the one before us. It cannot, however, have been copied from this record, for it not only varies in particular details, but also contains additions, and those such as the Chronicler cannot possibly have invented himself, e. g., the names of the five centurions and their fathers (2 Chronicles 23:1). It is, therefore, very generally admitted that the two accounts are derived from one and the same original record, from which the author of the books of Kings and the Chronicler each took different extracts according to the stand-point of each. The record before us is not only older, but it is also clear and definite, so that when it is regarded by itself simply it presents no difficulties. These do not present themselves until we turn to the story in Chronicles, which is, it is true, in some cases more full and detailed, but which is, on the whole, far less clear. In any attempt at reconciliation, therefore, we must not, as Keil does, make the Chronicles the standard, but must start from the record which here lies before us. Noteworthy as the additions and variations in the Chronicles may appear, they can only be accepted in so far as they are not contradictory to this account. 2 Kings 11:1. But Athaliah, &c. We may suppose that she had carried on the government as queen-regent (βְּ ?αִ ?ιψָ ?δ cf. 1 Kings 15:13; 1 Kings 11:19), [In the latter place it is applied to a queen-consort, as in Jeremiah 13:18; Jeremiah 29:2. In 1 Kings 15:13 and here it is applied to the queen-mother. It is a title which implies more actual political power and influence than ξַ ?μְ ?λָּ ?δ. The queen-mother has always been, and is, a personage of influence in oriental countries. For the importance of this role in the Israelitish monarchy, and for the influence exerted on the history by some of the individuals who filled it (Bathsheba, Maacah, Athaliah, Jezebel), see Stanley’s Lectures, 2d ser. p. 432], during the absence of her son at Ramoth and at Jezreel (2 Kings 8:28-29), and now she took the royal authority directly into her own hands. In order to establish herself on the throne, she proceeded in the usual manner of oriental usurpers (see above, on chap. 10). She slew all the “seed royal,” i.e., all the male members of the royal house who might eventually become pretenders to the throne. The forty-two “brethren of Ahaziah,” who were slain by Jehu (2 Kings 10:13 sq.), were not, therefore, all the princes there were, but a certain portion of them, especially those who were grown up. 2 Kings 11:2. Jehosheba was the sister of Ahaziah, but not the daughter of Athaliah. She was the daughter of another wife of king Jehoram. According to 2 Chronicles 20:11, she was the wife of Jehoiada, the priest—a statement the truth of which Thenius unjustly questions. It explains Jehoiada’s conduct most satisfactorily. The Chronicler has εַ ?ϊִּ ?ϊֵּ ?ο, after δַ ?ξּ ?εּ ?ξָ ?ϊִ ?ιν, and this word must here be supplied. ηֲ ?γַ ?ψδַ ?ξִּ ?θּ ?εֹ ?ϊ is not the “bed-chamber” (Luther, E. V.) either of the royal princes (Clericus), or of the priests and levites (Vatablus), but the room of the palace in which the beds, mattresses, and coverlets were stored, and where no one lived. The child, who was an infant at the breast, was temporarily hidden here, and then he was brought, for greater security, into the house of Jehovah, i.e., into a room adjoining the temple, or into one of the temple chambers, so that he was under the care of the high-priest. With her, i.e., with the wet-nurse, whose care he yet needed; not, “with Jehosheba” (Thenius), for she could not remain concealed for so long a time. The nurse remained with him, after he was weaned, as his attendant until his sixth year. Instead of ΰִ ?ϊָּ ?δ the Chronicler has, less precisely, ΰִ ?ϊָּ ?ν, with them, i.e., in their family. The priest and Jehosheba kept him in concealment. The Sept. translate ΰִ ?ϊָּ ?ν, in Chronicles, by μετ’ αὐτῆς, which they also give for ΰִ ?ϊָּ ?δ in Kings. We cannot infer, with Keil, that he was concealed “in the house of the high-priest, in one of the courts of the temple,” for there is no hint anywhere that the high-priest and his family lived in any part of the temple-building (cf. Nehemiah 3:26 sq., from which the contrary seems more probable). 2 Kings 11:4. And the seventh year Jehoiada sent, &c. For ωָׁ ?μַ ?η the Chronicler has δִ ?ϊְ ?ηַ ?ζַּ ?χ, i.e., “he took courage.” It seemed to Jehoiada doubtful whether he ought to keep the prince any longer in concealment. Perhaps also the government of Athaliah had become more and more unendurable. In 2 Kings 11:15; 2 Kings 11:18 he is called simply δַ ?λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο, whereby he is designated as high-priest. Cf. 2 Kings 12:11. The centurions were the commanders each of a hundred men of the life-guards and the runners (see notes on 1 Kings 1:38; 1 Kings 14:27). The Chronicler gives the names of these centurions and of their fathers, which he can only have obtained from the original document which served as authority both for him and for the writer of this history. As there are five names given we may infer that the entire life-guard consisted of 500 men. It is to be noticed that their agreement is not called a ωֶׁ ?χֶ ?ψ, as in the case of Baasha, Zimri, &c., but a αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ. Only Athaliah calls it ωֶׁ ?χֶ ?ψ, 2 Kings 11:14. The oath which Jehoiada took of them in the holy place can only have been to this effect, that they would bring about the elevation of the prince to the throne, but, for the present, would keep the intention to do so secret. He then showed the prince to them. In the account in Chronicles the words: “And took an oath of them in the house of Jehovah, and showed them the king’s son,” are wanting. Instead, we read there: “And they went about in Judah, and gathered the levites out of all the cities of Judah, and the chief of the fathers of Israel, and they came to Jerusalem. And all the congregation (i.e., the collected representatives of the people) made a covenant with the king in the house of God. And he (Jehoiada) said unto them, Behold, the king’s son shall reign as the Lord hath said of the sons of David.” There is no contradiction here, for we may well suppose that Jehoiada at first only admitted the five chiefs into the secret, and won their adhesion, but that they, before they proceeded to carry out the plan proposed (2 Kings 11:5 sq.), sought to assure themselves of the support of the levites and of the representative family chiefs, and invited them to one of the three great yearly festivals, at which they were accustomed to visit Jerusalem according to the law, so that their presence there would not attract attention. [See appendix to this section for a detailed comparison of the two accounts.] 2 Kings 11:5. And he commanded them, &c. Jehoiada’s plan was to take military possession of the two places, which here were of prime importance, the palace and the temple. In the latter was the young prince, who was then to be crowned and anointed; in the former was the throne, of which he was afterwards to take possession. 2 Kings 11:5-6 treat of the taking possession of the palace; 2 Kings 11:7-8 of that of the temple. It should be particularly observed that Jehoiada’s words are addressed to the centurions of the life-guard and of the runners (2 Kings 11:4). Therefore when he says (2 Kings 11:5): A third part ξִ ?λֶּ ?ν; and (2 Kings 11:7): both sorts αָּ ?λֶ ?ν, he means of course no other than the soldiers under the command of these captains, who are distinctly mentioned, in 2 Kings 11:9, as their “men,” so that it is simply impossible to understand by it, “levites.” The entire body of men at their disposal consisted, therefore, of those who had to undertake guard-duty on the sabbath, and of those who were released from service on that day. Those who entered upon service at that time were to hold control of the palace at three points; one third at the αֵּ ?ιϊδַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ, by which we have to understand here the royal residence proper, in distinction from the less important accessory buildings connected with it (2 Kings 11:5, in which, it may be remarked in passing, εְ ?ωָׁ ?ξְ ?ψεְ must be read instead of εְֹ ?ωׂ ?ξְ ?ψֵ ?ι. The Sept. add after φυλακὴνοἴκουτοῦ βασιλέως, the words: ἐντῷ πυλῶνι.) The second third-part was to hold the gate ρεּ ?ψ. No gate by this name is mentioned elsewhere. According to the signification of the stem ρεּ ?ψ, to depart from the way, it can refer only to the exit or side-door of the palace. The third third-part received the charge αַּ ?ωַּׁ ?ςַ ?ψΰַ ?ηַ ?ψδָ ?ψָ ?φִ ?ιν, or, as it is called in 2 Kings 11:19 simply, ωַׁ ?ςַ ?ψδָ ?ψָ ?φִ ?ιν. [The “runners” were probably couriers whose line of duty was to act as the king’s messengers. This gate was probably so called, because it was the one before which they were usually stationed, either on guard-duty, or awaiting commands which were directed to their department of the service, or both.—W. G. S.] Since the new king held his solemn entry into the palace through this gate (2 Kings 11:19), it must have been the chief gate; through which there was the most direct approach to the royal residence. It was “behind” the runners, since their usual station was before it. The word ξַ ?ρָּ ?η is not a proper name (Luther: Massa; Vulg.: Messa), but means repulse, defence, that which wards off, from πρη, to ward off, and it is in apposition to ξִ ?ωְׁ ?ξֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊ. It may be referred to all three of the third-parts, since all three were intended to ward off and expel every one who might desire to gain admission to the palace. This was the duty assigned to those who commenced duty on the sabbath. Those who were released on that day were to guard the temple (2 Kings 11:7). They were not to be divided up into subdivisions to do duty at separate posts, but their two ιָ ?γεֹ ?ϊ were to form ωְׂ ?γֵ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ and to take the young king in their midst (2 Kings 11:8) By ιָ ?γεֹ ?ϊ are meant, in distinction from ωְׁ ?μִ ?ωִׁ ?ιϊ (2 Kings 11:5-6) the two different sorts of soldiers, according to their weapons and duties, i.e., the life-guards and the runners. ωְׂ ?γֵ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ are the ranks, in which they were to arrange themselves, between which the king went out of the temple into the palace. Any one who broke through them and ventured inside was to be slain (2 Kings 11:8). “Let it be observed with what accuracy αָּ ?λֶ ?ν is used in 2 Kings 11:7, where the reference is to a distinction of functions, and ξִ ?λֶּ ?ν in 2 Kings 11:5, where the reference is to merely numerical subdivisions of the force” (Thenius). The final words of 2 Kings 11:8 : And be ye with the king as he goeth out and as he cometh in, belong to the directions which Jehoiada gave for the division of the numbers and of the functions of the soldiers for this especial case. They cannot, therefore, be taken as of general signification, referring to all the life of the king, under all circumstances: “In all his business, or, in all his movements” (Keil), as in Deuteronomy 28:6; Deuteronomy 31:2, but they refer to the execution of this plan, and are to be understood of the movement of the king from the temple to the palace (Thenius). In 2 Kings 11:9 sq. follows the actual execution of the commands of Jehoiada which have been imparted in the preceding verses. 2 Kings 11:10. And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give, &c. Instead of the sing. δַ ?ηֲ ?πִ ?ιϊ, the Chronicler has the plural δַ ?ηֲ ?πִ ?ιϊִ ?ιν, and all the ancient versions present the plural in the verse before us. It seems that it stood originally δַ ?ηֲ ?πιϊֹ ?ϊ (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3), and the last ϊ was lost by an error in copying (Keil). “We must understand that these were not David’s own weapons, but some which he had captured, and placed in the temple as an offering. According to Ewald, whose opinion Thenius approves, Jehoiada gave these weapons to the captains, “in order to begin and consecrate the enterprise on which they were about to enter, of restoring the family of David to the throne, by using the weapons of the great ancestor of that family.” But perhaps his only reason for distributing these arms among them was, that those who had retired from service at the palace had left their weapons there. The centurions divided these weapons among their soldiers, as 2 Kings 11:11 expressly mentions, among the “runners,” not, therefore, among levites. When the men were thus armed, they were stationed: “From the right-hand side of the house to the left-hand side of the house, along towards the altar and the temple,” so that they surrounded and covered the person of the king. The meaning is that they shut off the space from the temple-building proper to the altar, and that the king stood in the midst of this space. Whether one row stood across the front from side to side, and two others parallel, along the side (Bertheau), or whether one row stood from the right-hand corner of the temple to the altar, and the other from the altar to the left-hand corner (Thenius), must be left undecided. Not until after the troops had been thus arranged, did Jehoiada lead out the young prince into the midst of the open space (2 Kings 11:12). δָ ?ςֵ ?γεּ ?ϊ does not mean the insignia regia (Clericus), or the phylacteries (Deuteronomy 6:8, Grotius), but, the Law, and, if not the whole Pentateuch, at least the Decalogue, which is so often called the “Testimony” (Exodus 25:21; Exodus 16:34, &c.). This was probably given into his hands as a symbol of what is declared to be the law for the king in Deuteronomy 17:19, whereas the diadem was placed upon his head (2 Samuel 1:10). He was then anointed (1 Kings 1:39). To clap the hands was a sign of delight and approval (Isaiah 55:12). Besides the armed force, the priests, and the levites, a multitude of people was also present (2 Kings 11:14), which denotes that the coronation took place on a feast-day, when the people collected in Jerusalem from all parts of the country. The acclamations of the people are in the same words as in 1 Kings 1:25. 2 Kings 11:13. And when Athaliah heard the noise, &c. As worshipper of Baal, who, at that time, had his own temple in Jerusalem (2 Kings 11:18), Athaliah took no part in the feasts of the worshippers of Jehovah, in the Jehovah-temple, and, on this day, she paid the less heed to what was going on in the temple, inasmuch as the change of the guards in the palace had taken place as usual, and nothing indicated any unusual disturbance. The great outcry, which she either heard herself, as she well might in view of the short distance from the palace to the temple, or which was reported to her by her attendants, aroused her suspicions, so that she betook herself thither. Josephus states that she went out of the palace with her own troops (μετὰ τῆςἰδίαςστρατιᾶς), and that, when she came to the temple, the priests allowed her to enter, but the guards prevented her guards from following; that Athaliah, when she saw the crowned boy, cried out, and commanded that he who had dared to try to usurp her authority should be put to death, and that thereupon Jehoiada gave orders that she should be led out and executed outside of the temple. [That the queen should have gone down in person into the temple, without guards or attendants, to quell what must have appeared to be a mere vulgar riot, is certainly an astonishing incident—W. G. S.] The words δָ ?ψָ ?φִ ?ιοδָ ?ςָ ?ν cannot be translated: “Of the people who flocked to the spot” (Luther, after the Vulg.). “The text must have read originally δָ ?ψָ ?φִ ?ιοεְ ?δָ ?ςָ ?ν, and the ε must have fallen out by a copyist’s error” (Thenius, Keil). The Chronicler transposes the words: δָ ?ςָ ?νδָ ?ψָּ ?φִ ?ιν, and adds: εְ ?δַ ?ξְ ?δַ ?μְ ?μִ ?ινΰֶ ?ϊΞδַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ, i. e., the people who were flocking together and hailing the king. The ψָ ?φִ ?ιν are, however, in this context, always the “runners” who formed a part of the royal guards (2 Kings 11:4; 2 Kings 11:6; 2 Kings 11:11; 2 Kings 11:19), so that the word can mean nothing else in 2 Kings 11:13, and the text of the Chronicles cannot, with any good reason at all, be preferred. 2 Kings 11:14. The king stood ςַ ?μΞδָ ?ςָ ?ξּ ?εּ ?γ, i.e., not “at the column” (Luther) [or, “by a pillar” (E. V.)], but at the appointed, traditional place, which was reserved for the king, by established usage (αַּ ?ξִּ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ), as in chap, 2 Kings 23:3; 2 Chronicles 34:31. Thenius understands by it “the top step of the stairs which led up to the temple,” but this would not be any especial position, because the priests passed and stood there every day. Evidently a particular place is meant, an elevated dais or platform (Vulg.: tribunal), which was reserved for the king alone, for, when Athaliah saw the prince standing there, she knew at once what the transaction was which was being accomplished. The people, who stood in the forecourt, could not have seen the king, if he had stood on the top of the temple-steps, on account of the altar ten cubits high which stood in the court of the priests. The platform in question must have stood before the altar, at the entrance to the inner fore-court (αַּ ?ξָּ ?αεֹ ?ΰ 2 Chronicles 23:13), so that the king, when he stood upon it, was the first object to strike the eye of Athaliah as she entered. Solomon had caused just such arrangements to be made (2 Chronicles 6:13; see Exeg. on 1 Kings 8:22)—The Vulg. incorrectly renders δַ ?ωָּׂ ?ψִ ?ιν by cantores, the Sept. by οἱ ᾠδοί, and Luther by “singers,” as if the word were δַ ?ωָּׁ ?ψִ ?ιν. They are the centurions, as in 2 Kings 11:4; 2 Kings 11:9. The word is correctly translated in the Sept. and Vulg. versions of Chronicles by οἱ ἄρχοντες, and principes.—δַ ?ηֲ ?φֹ ?φְ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ, trumpets, for trumpeters. Since the word occurs in 2 Kings 12:14, in the enumeration of the utensils of the temple, and is also used in Numbers 10:2 to designate the trumpets or horns of the priests, and since, moreover, 1 Chronicles 15:24 (2 Kings 13:8), the priests appear as ξַ ?ηְ ?φְ ?φψִ ?ιναַּ ?ηֲ ?φֹ ?φְ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ, we can think here only of levites or priests as the persons who were blowing the trumpets.—And all the people of the land, i.e., “the multitude which was present” (Bertheau), as in 2 Kings 11:13, not, “the entire force of militia, which was present in Jerusalem” (Thenius).—Athaliah rent her clothes, not so much in grief as from terror, like Joram, 2 Kings 6:30. 2 Kings 11:15. But Jehoiada the priest commanded, &c. The centurions of the life-guard are here designated as commanders of the army in general. “The readers are to be reminded by this addition that the military forces were willing to obey Jehoiada” (Bertheau).—Have her forth through (or between) the ranks, μַ ?ωְּׂ ?γֵ ?ψֹ ?ϊ, i.e., within the ranks, “so that she was led through the ranks, and was hindered from taking any measures in accord with her adherents” (Bertheau). Any one who might desire to take her part, or to assist her, was to be slain.—ιָ ?ωִׂ ?ιξεּ μָ ?δּ ιָ ?γַ ?ιִ ?ν (2 Kings 11:16), i.e., not, as Luther [and the E. V.] translate, following the Sept. (ἐπέβαλοναὐτῇ χεῖρας), and the Vulg. (imposuerunt ei manus), “They laid hands on her,” but, as the Chaldee version renders it, and as almost all the expositors understand it: “They made for her two sides,” i.e., they made room for her, opening the ranks on both sides, “formed in rank and escorted her out” (Keil). By ξְ ?αεֹ ?ΰδַ ?ρּ ?εּ ?ρִ ?ιν, the entrance-way for horses into the royal stables is to be understood, so that it is not the “horse-gate” (Nehemiah 3:28), as Josephus understands, for this was a gate of the inner city, and led into the city, not into the palace. She was not to be conducted by the way into the palace, because the new king was to make his solemn entry into the palace by this. It does not follow, however, that Athaliah was “to die shamefully and disgracefully by the stables” (Thenius), for the royal stables were not, as such, a shameful or unclean place. 2 Kings 11:17. And Jehoiada made the covenant, &c. Not a covenant (Luther), but the covenant, i.e., the covenant of Jehovah with Israel, which had been broken by the false worship of Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah. This covenant was solemnly renewed. It attached primarily to the relation between the king and people on the one hand, and Jehovah on the other (they were to be Jehovah’s people and belong to Him, Deuteronomy 4:28), then, also, to the relation between the king and the people. The people was to be, from that time on, once more the people of God; it was to worship and serve Him alone. The king was to rule according to the “testimony,” i.e., the Law of Jehovah, which had been solemnly put into his hands, and the people were to be loyal to the legitimate king of the family of David. The immediate and necessary consequence of this renewal of the covenant was the destruction of the temple of Baal, with its altars and idols (2 Kings 11:18). When and by whom this temple was built is nowhere stated. It is most probable that it was erected by Jehoram, under the influence of Athaliah (2 Kings 8:18), as the one in Samaria was built by Ahab, under the influence of Jezebel (1 Kings 16:32). Thenius is wrong in inferring from 2 Chronicles 24:7, that this temple was erected “in the enclosure of the temple of Jehovah,” for that passage says only that Athaliah and her sons had plundered the Jehovah-temple of all which they could use in the worship of Baal. There can be no doubt that we must understand it to refer to a building on another elevation. It is certain also that Mattan, the priest of Baal who was slain, did not perform his functions in the same place with Jehoiada. [The grounds which lead Bδhr to believe that the temple of Baal was not on Mount Moriah are not satisfactory. Every indication which we have in regard to it goes to show that it was there. Mount Moriah is just the spot which would have been chosen for the site of a temple by any nation of ancient times which might have lived at Jerusalem. There was no other elevation near or convenient. The “old city” was perhaps in some places a little higher than Mount Moriah, but it presented no sharp and clear elevation, such as those which ancient nations always chose as sites of temples, if there was one in the neighborhood. The other hills were too far away. It would be little in accord with the character of Athaliah to suppose that she gave up the best site, which was, at the same time, one of the grandest in the world, according to the taste in those matters, to the Jehovah-religion, and sought another for her own favorite deities. The Jehovah-religion may have been strong enough in Judah to force a compromise, and maintain a joint possession of the mountain. 2 Chronicles 24:7 says that Athaliah and her sons had “broken down” or “torn down (τָּ ?ψְ ?ςεּ) the house of God” Just how much that means we cannot perhaps determine, but the temple was standing and available for worship, &c., at this time, as we see, and it may well be meant that they broke down such portions of the walls of the courts, &c., as was necessary to get room for the temple of Baal. See also 2 Kings 12:5 (Exeg.) and 2 Chronicles 24:7. Still farther, if 2 Kings 11:18 is in its proper chronological position before 2 Kings 11:19, and is not, as Thenius thinks, to be taken as belonging after it in order of time, then it gives a strong ground for believing that the temple of Baal was on Mount Moriah. They stayed to tear it down before they formed the procession, and left the temple-mountain to “go down” and escort the king into the palace. It cannot be regarded, therefore, as “beyond doubt” that Mattan and Jehoiada did not perform their functions in the same place. That the latter did not like the juxtaposition, we may well believe, but if the question was whether to share Mount Moriah with the worshippers of Baal, or to remove the Jehovah-worship from it, or to give up the Jehovah-worship altogether, we may easily imagine what course he would have chosen.—W. G. S.]—Duncker, whom Weber again follows, deduces from the sentence: The priests appointed τְּ ?χֻ ?γֹּ ?ϊ over the house of the Lord, the arbitrary conclusion that, in spite of the victory of the priestly party, “Nevertheless the number of the servants of Baal was so great, and their courage was so little broken, that it was necessary to protect the temple of Jehovah against their attacks by especial guards” Thenius also thinks that there is reference here to a kind of temple-officers which had not existed before, “by whom a new desecration of the temple by the worship of false gods was to be prevented” We must understand by it, as is expressly stated 2 Chronicles 23:18, the overseers who were appointed by David (1 Chronicles 25.), and who, during the time that idolatry prevailed, had not been regularly kept up, or perhaps had not been appointed at all. That the article is wanting cannot be decisive to the contrary. [So Keil. Ewald, Thenius, and Bunsen, on the contrary, think that they were intended to protect the temple against the attacks of the heathen. The Chronicler develops this short note into an elaborate statement, as he does all the notices of the origin of any ritual formalities or hierarchical organizations. It is not clear, however, that it should have been thought necessary, just at the time when the Jehovah-religion could once more count on the support of the throne, to appoint new and permanent officers to protect the temple from heathen attacks and desecrations. Moreover, this clause, thus understood, makes the position of 2 Kings 11:18 before 2 Kings 11:19 probably incorrect as regards the order of time. Shall we understand that they stayed to appoint temple-officers before completing the inauguration of the king? It would be most reasonable to understand it to state simply that they appointed a guard to stay and protect the temple from any sudden attack of the enraged worshippers of Baal, while all the rest went to escort the king into the palace, and see him mount the throne.—W. G. S.] According to 2 Kings 11:19, the centurions mentioned in 2 Kings 11:4, with their troops, the life-guards and the runners, escorted the king down (εַ ?ιֹּ ?ψִ ?ιγεּ) from the House of Jehovah in a solemn procession arranged (εַ ?ιִּ ?χַּ ?η) by the priest Jehoiada. Escorted him down, it is said, because there was a ravine between Mount Moriah and Mount Zion, over which at that time there probably was no bridge. They came through the “Gate of the Runners” (the Chronicler gives αְּ ?ϊεֹ ?κְ instead of γֶּ ?ψֶ ?κְ, by way of explanation) into the palace, where the throne stood, upon which the king seated himself. The Gate of the Runners belonged therefore to the palace. The Sept. take αֵּ ?ιϊδַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ as a direct genitive, οἴκουτοῦ βασιλέως. It was unquestionably the chief gate, for the solemn entry would not take place through any other (Thenius). Ewald, Thenius, and Bertheau connect εְ ?δָ ?ςִ ?ιψωָׁ ?χָ ?θָ ?δ with the following, in opposition to the massoretic punctuation: “And the city remained quiet when they slew Athaliah with the sword:” that is to say, her adherents remained peaceful and did not venture to make any movement to save her. But, in that ease, the words “with the sword” would be unnecessary. The correct interpretation of the words is rather that the concluding sentence is intended to append to 2 Kings 11:16 an emphatic statement of the manner in which she was put to death, and, at the same time, to call attention to the fact that, by her death, the last member of the house of Ahab was removed, and the legitimate authority of the house of David was restored. In this interpretation this sentence brings the account to a well-rounded close. —— Appendix.—In the exegetical explanations which precede, only the less important variations of the Chronicles have been noticed, and no account has been taken of the grand divergence of the two narratives in their general conception of the occurrence, in order that the continuous elucidation of the text before us might not be too much interrupted, and in order that no confusion might arise. The chief variation now, one which runs through the entire account, is, that, according to the Chronicler, it was not the centurions of the royal guards, but the priests, the levites, and the family-chiefs, by whose aid Jehoiada accomplished his reformation (2 Chronicles 23:2); furthermore, that the first third of the priests and levites who entered upon service on the sabbath were appointed μְ ?ωֹׁ ?ςֲ ?ψֵ ?ιδַ ?ρִּ ?τִּ ?ιν, i.e., to be gate-keepers of the threshold, the second to guard the king’s house, and the third to keep the gate δַ ?ιְ ?ρεֹ ?γ (2 Kings 11:4-5); finally, that the two classes of priests and levites, those who entered upon, and those who were released from, service, remain together (2 Kings 11:8), so that, in general, it is only the temple, and not the royal palace at various points, which is guarded. Modern criticism explains these variations as “arbitrary alterations” of the Chronicler, which he adopted “out of preference for the tribe of Levi, in order to. ascribe to the priest-caste an honor which belonged to the prζtorians”(Thenius, De Wette). This assertion is, to say the very least, exaggerated. No suspicion of falsehood can attach to the idea that the priests and levites participated in the coronation and inauguration of the new king, especially seeing that the main object to be gained by this was the abolition of idolatry (2 Kings 11:17 sq.). The plan of the enterprise, according to the account before us, did not proceed from the centurions of the prζtorian guard, but from the head of the priest-class, and it would be astonishing and unnatural if the high-priest had excluded all his comrades in rank, office, and family, from participation in a transaction which was not only political, but also religious, and which took place in the temple. This participation was a matter of course, all the more seeing that the act, according to all the indications (see notes on 2 Kings 11:4; 2 Kings 11:13), took place on a feast, at which priests and levites were bound to be present. The author does not, therefore, exclude them, he rather takes their participation for granted, as we see distinctly from 2 Kings 11:14. Still less does the Chronicler exclude the prζtorian guard from participation; he even gives what this author does not give in regard to them, viz., the names of the centurions and of their fathers, and thereby he shows how important their part in the work appeared to him, and also shows that he had not forgotten them, but desired that they should be kept in honorable remembrance. He could not, therefore, have had any intention of robbing them of any honor which belonged to them, and conferring it upon the levites. But while this author permits the participation of the levites to remain unemphasized, as something which was a simple matter of course, the Chronicler, who certainly looks at the history more from the priestly, levitical standpoint, feels bound to give it greater prominence. There is no contradiction between the two accounts in this respect. The case is somewhat different, however, in regard to the other detailed variations. The three localities which were to be held, each, according to the Chronicler, by one third of the priests and levites, cannot possibly have been all in the temple, for the αֵּ ?ιϊδַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ, the guard of which is entrusted (2 Kings 11:5) to the second third, can only be the king’s house or palace, not “the place in the temple where the young king was (in concealment)” (Keil). The “Gate ιְ ?ρεֹ ?γ,” which was entrusted to the third third, was, as no one doubts, the same which is called in Kings (2 Kings 11:6) the “Gate ρεּ ?ψ.” It appears there distinctly as a gate of the palace. Probably ιְ ?ρεֹ ?γ is only another reading for νεּ ?ψ. A temple-gate with this name is not mentioned anywhere else. The ρִ ?τִּ ?ιν, which the first third are to guard (2 Kings 11:4), might, according to 1 Chronicles 9:19, be a locality in the temple, but it is utterly impossible that they should be identical, as Keil assumes, with the “Gate of the Runners” in the account here before us (2 Kings 11:6), for this gate is distinctly mentioned in 2 Kings 11:19 as the one through which the king, after the procession had left the House of Jehovah, was conducted into the palace. According to this account, that gate was guarded by the third third of that portion of the troops under the command of the centurions which entered upon duty on that day, and not by priests and levites, who, of course, never mounted guard at the palace. These variations of the two accounts cannot be reconciled, and we are absolutely forced to admit that the Chronicler, although he made some more detailed extracts from the original document than the author of the Book of Kings, nevertheless did not accurately discriminate between the priests and levites and the military life-guard, and did not keep separate the shares of the two in the transaction. Keil asserts, in order, in spite of this, to bring the two accounts into accord: Jehoiada “determined to carry out the project chiefly by the aid of the priests and levites, who relieved each other, in the service of the temple, on the sabbath, and he entrusted the chief command of these forces to the captains of the royal life-guard, that they, with the force of priests and levites under their command, might take possession of the approaches to the temple, in order to repel any attempt of the military to force an entrance, and might protect the young king. These captains came into the temple without weapons in order not to attract attention, therefore Jehoiada gave them the weapons of king David, which were laid up in the temple.” But the account of the Chronicler says nothing of any commission of the command over the priests and levites to the centurions, and this account directly contradicts any such notion (see above, on 2 Kings 11:5), [not to say anything of the very great intrinsic improbability that any such arrangement—putting military leaders in command of priestly forces—would ever have been adopted, or that, if it had, it would have worked well.—W. G. S.] According to the account before us it is impossible to exclude the troops ordinarily under the command of the centurions from a share in the transaction. It was almost more necessary to get possession of the palace than of the temple, because the king was to make his solemn entry into it, and mount the throne after his coronation. It is not an argument against the notion that a guard was set over the palace, that Athaliah came down out of it to the people in the temple. There was no object in preventing her from coming out; the guard was set to prevent any one from getting in (ξַ ?ρָּ ?η 2 Kings 11:6). There is no force in the citation of Josephus (Antiq., 7. 14, 7): “Each of the twenty-four classes of priests took charge of the worship for eight days from sabbath to sabbath,” or in the observation that “it is not known that any such arrangement was observed with respect to the life-guards or any other portion of the army,” for of course all regular guards had to relieve each other at definite times, and the record says distinctly that this was the custom of the troops who were under command of the centurions. AND ETHICAL1. The elevation of Joash to the throne of Judah has great importance in the history of redemption, inasmuch as God’s guidance and protection of the house of David appears in it, and as it is a confirmation of the promise given to this house that it should never be extinguished, and that its light should never fail (2 Samuel 7:13 sq.; 1 Kings 11:36; 1 Kings 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19; cf. Psalms 132:17). In the kingdom of Israel the dynasties changed; one overthrew the other and destroyed it; with Jehu the fourth had already begun. In the kingdom of Judah, on the contrary, the house of David had maintained itself until this time. But now, when Jehu had killed Ahaziah and forty-two of his relatives, and all the remaining royal seed had been destroyed by Athaliah, it appeared that the line of David also was at an end. But God wonderfully ordered it so that an infant of this house escaped the massacre and was saved. He remained concealed for years, and it must have been believed that David’s lamp had gone out forever, when suddenly the sole remaining offshoot of the house of David ascended the throne, and, with the murderess Athaliah, the last survivor of the house of Ahab perished. As the fulfilment of the promise to protect the house of David must have been recognized in this event, there was in it at the same time, for every faithful servant of Jehovah, a pledge that the God of Israel would protect this house also for the future in any calamities; and so He did, until finally, according to the promise, the great “son of David” came, who was not only the “lamp” of David, but the light of the world, whose kingdom shall have no end (Luke 1:32-33; Luke 1:69). 2. All the mischief which the relationship contracted by Jehoshaphat with the house of Ahab (1 Kings 22, Hist § 1) had brought upon Judah, culminated in the reign of Athaliah, which brought Judah and its royal house to the verge of ruin. Athaliah was a faithful copy of. her mother Jezebel, fanatical, idolatrous, imperious, and cruel. As her mother had controlled Ahab, so she controlled Jehoram and her son Ahaziah. It was she who transplanted idolatry into Judah, which had, until then, been faithful to Jehovah. Under her influence a temple of Baal was built in Jerusalem itself. She plundered the temple of Jehovah and took all the sacred implements for use in the service of Baal (2 Chronicles 24:7). After the death of her son she usurped the royal authority, so that a woman came to sit upon the throne, a thing which had never taken place before and never took place afterwards, and which not only was in direct contradiction with one of the essential duties which devolved upon a king of Israel, who, as such, was to be a “servant of God,” but also was contrary to the express provision of the law. Maimonides, in the tract Melachim, draws this inference, thus: “They place no woman on the throne, for it is said (Deuteronomy 17:15): ‘Thou shalt in any wise set him king,’ not queen. So also, in all positions of dignity and authority, they place only men.” Athaliah’s usurpation of the throne was the dissolution of the Israelitish monarchy. In order to maintain herself in her usurped authority, she put to death, not, like other usurpers, her opponents, but those who were connected with her own family, her own nephews and grandchildren. The ground for this “senseless crime” (Ewald) cannot be sought in the fact that she desired to annex Judah to Israel, for Jehu was reigning there, but only in the blind and passionate love of power of this “wicked” woman (2 Chronicles 24:7), and in her raging hate against the house of David, to which all true servants of Jehovah adhered. For six years she pursued her own courses undisturbed, and believed herself secure, when finally the legitimate heir to the throne, who had escaped the massacre by God’s evident protection, appeared and was anointed king. As her mother Jezebel had stood upon her majesty in her dealings with Jehu, and had believed that she could command, so she came, proud and insolent, into the house of Jehovah, and, forgetting the illegitimacy of her own authority, founded, as it was, solely upon violence, she cried out: “Treason, treason!” But again, as her mother had heard her doom pronounced: “Throw her down!” so she hears the command: “Have her forth! and him that followeth her kill with the sword.” As there was no one who took the part of the hated woman, she died, abandoned by all her servants, a just and disgraceful death. Thereby Judah and its royal house were saved. Racine concludes his tragedy Athalie, with these words: Par cette fin terrible, et due ΰ ses forfaits,Apprenez, roi des Juifs, et n’oubliez jamais,Que les rois dans le ciel ont un juge sιvθre,L’innocence un vengeur, et l’orphelin un pθre. 3. The high-priest Jehoiada is, for his time, a very remarkable character. Although, through his wife Jehosheba, he was connected with the idolatrous court, and although he was entrusted with an office which, under the circumstances, was doubly difficult, yet he held firm and true to the God of Israel, and to the legitimate dynasty. The Lord had given the last heir of this line into his hands, and, at the peril of his life, he protects him for years in concealment, guarding him as his own child, and waiting in faith and patience until Jehovah shall give means and ways to restore the apparently exterminated royal house. As the yoke of the tyrannical woman became more and more unendurable, he “strengthened himself” [i.e., took courage, made up his mind] (2 Chronicles 23:1), and put his hand to the work. He did not wish to open the way to the throne for the young heir by deceit or craft, by cruelty and bloodshed. In the first place he admits the captains of the military guard into the secret, and makes sure of their assistance; then he causes the priests and levites, and the heads of all the families, i.e., the representatives of the people, to be summoned to Jerusalem for a public festival. He. does not wish to do anything by himself alone, but with the consent of the different classes among the entire people. His plan bears witness, not only to his wisdom and prudence, but also to his patriotism. He takes all his measures in such a way that the end is accomplished without tumult or violence, but yet without chance of failure. It is not selfishness and love of power, but pure and disinterested love to Jehovah and to His people which is his motive. Only when Athaliah stigmatizes the restoration of the legitimate order of things as treason and insurrection, puts herself on the defensive, and calls for armed opposition to the movement, does he give orders to lead the crowned monster, as Dereser justly calls her, out of the sanctuary, and deliver her over to her well-deserved fate. His next care then is to renew the covenant between the king and people, exhorting the former to fidelity to the law, and the latter to fidelity to the king. Then finally he leads the king to the throne, and the people put an end to the idol-worship. If ever a man stood pure and blameless in the midst of such a bold, difficult, and far-reaching enterprise, then Jehoiada, the ideal Israelitish priest, did so here. 4. Our modern historians see, in the elevation of the descendant of David to the throne of his fathers, a priest-revolution, just as they see, in the elevation of Jehu, a prophet-revolution. So Duncker (Gesch. d. Alt., s. 417), whom Weber (Gesch., s. 241) follows, states it thus: “The priests of the temple at Jerusalem had yielded to the foreign worship much more easily than the prophets in Israel. The example and the success of the latter gradually exercised an influence upon Judah. After the prophets of Israel had brought about the ruin of the house of Omri, the priests tried to overthrow the last remnant of this family in Judah also.… The fall of Joram of Israel, and perhaps also the hope of finding in Joash, the son of Ahaziah, whom the priests held in concealment from Athaliah in the temple, an easy tool for priestly influence, induced the high-priest Jehoiada to undertake the overthrow of the queen.” Winer (R.-W.-B., i. s. 111) also presents the incident in a similar manner: “The priests saved her (Athaliah’s) grandson, Joash, with the help of a princess, in the temple. When he had grown up he was secretly anointed king, and Athaliah was put to death in a popular insurrection excited by the priests.” Here we have another specimen of that history-making which ignores what the text says, and states, as assured historical fact, that which it does not say. That the priests in Judah gave way more easily to the Baal-worship than the prophets of Israel; that they, encouraged by the example and success of the latter, dethroned and murdered Athaliah, and regarded Joash as one who would probably prove an easy tool in their hands; that the priests saved Joash and hid him in the temple; that he was secretly anointed king, and that then a popular rising was instigated by the priests; of all that, there is nothing in either record. On the contrary, both agree in stating that the sister of king Ahaziah, without any assistance from the priests, took away the infant, and hid him in the palace itself, in the bed store-room, and that she then hid him, for greater security, in the temple, which was under the charge of her husband, the high-priest. These two near relatives of the prince were, for six years, the only ones who knew of his existence. Not until the seventh year did Jehoiada admit any one to the secret, and then not the priests, but the captains of the military guard, and he took of them an oath of secrecy. They it was who summoned the chiefs of the people, and the priests, and the levites, to the festival at Jerusalem, and who took the lead in carrying out the plan. The young prince was not anointed “secretly,” but as openly as possible. Not only the priests, but also the captains of the royal guard, the representatives of the people, and the people themselves, shouted their acclamations to the new king. The coronation took place without violence, without any scene of public disturbance. The city is quiet, and the people joyful (2 Kings 11:20). How can anyone then speak of a “popular rising instigated by the priests?” Criticism here comes into contradiction with itself. It declares the record in Chronicles unreliable and unhistorical, because it gives such prominence to the participation of the priests and levites, whereas the record in Kings only mentions the captains of the guard, and yet it says that the entire enterprise was conducted by the priests. But it is radically perverse and false to regard the incident as a revolution or a revolt. That Athaliah, as even De Wette expresses it, “usurped the throne of David,” that she took the royal authority into her own hands, that she destroyed all the remaining seed-royal, that was a revolution. What Jehoiada undertook, not by himself, but in harmony with all ranks, and with the representatives of the people, was a repeal of the revolution, and a restoration of the constitutional, divine as well as human, order. It would have been contrary to conscience and to duty, if Jehoiada had gone down to the grave with the secret that there was yet living a legitimate heir of the throne of David. It was most natural that he should take the initiative in the restoration of the legitimate monarchy, because he had the prince under his care, and no one knew anything about him but Jehoiada and his wife. Moreover, it was doubly his duty, as chief of those whose calling it was to guard and teach the law, i.e., the covenant of God with Israel (Malachi 2:7; Deuteronomy 33:10; Leviticus 10:11), to labor to the end that the organic law of the kingdom, which was a theocracy, should be maintained; and, when this law was trodden under foot by the usurping sovereign, no one was so much bound as he to restore it, that is, to renew the covenant. In the kingdom of Israel, where, since Jeroboam, there was no longer any lawful priesthood (2 Chronicles 11:13 sq.), it was the prophets who had to watch over the covenant of Jehovah and to fight for it. In Judah, on the contrary, “the diminished and weakened priesthood, together with the true Jehovah-prophets, had to form the opposition to the patronage of paganism” (Ewald). Jehoiada’s enterprise did not aim to bring about the dominion of the priesthood, but that of the legitimate theocratic dynasty. He, therefore, turned first to the servants of the crown for assistance—aimed to have the new king inaugurated by their power. After this was accomplished, he restored the priestly offices. He aimed at nothing more and nothing less than the restoration of the original theocratic constitution. AND 2 Kings 11:1-3. Queen Athaliah. (a) Her wicked plans, 2 Kings 11:1. (Idolatrous and fond of power, like her mother Jezebel, she takes the royal authority into her own hands, in self-will and contrary to right, and murders all the male seed, in order to put an end forever to the house of David. Wόrt. Summ.: We see here whither ambition and love of rule may lead men. Athaliah does not spare her own innocent grandchildren, but causes them to be put to death, only in order that she may be called queen, and may remain such. Sir 3:29 sq.). (b) The frustration of her plans, 2 Kings 11:2-3. (Job 5:12; Psalms 2:4; Psalms 33:10. Wόrt. Summ: No one can tread down him whom God sustains. Thus, Pharaoh would have been glad to destroy Israel; Saul would have slain David; Herod, the child Jesus; they could not accomplish it, however; they only injured themselves and perished, just as Athaliah did also.) 2 Kings 11:1. Jehoshaphat’s marriage of his son with a daughter of the house of Ahab, although he brought it about in a good intention, produced the result that Athaliah ruled over Judah, and brought the dynasty of David to the brink of ruin. Neue Wόrt. Summ.: So, many a quiet, humble, God-fearing family has been brought into calamities, affecting both body and soul, by a thoughtless marriage. The hope that those who are brought up by godless parents will themselves reform and turn to the fear of God has very slight foundation. 2 Kings 11:1-4. Krummacher: King Joash. (a) The great danger which threatened him; (b) but how gloriously he was protected, and (c) how high he was elevated. 2 Kings 11:1. When she saw, &c. That which should have made her hesitate and bow in humility to God’s judgment, only made her insolent and blood-thirsty. That is the judgment which obstinacy and wilfulness bring upon themselves. 2 Kings 11:2. Calw. Bib.: We have an instance in Jehosheba how, even in the midst of godlessness in a family, any one who will can make an exception.—Jehosheba stole him. That was not “stealing” the child, but saving him. What can a woman do better and nobler than to save an infant child from danger of soul and body, and take him under her protection for the sake of God and His promises? 2 Kings 11:3. “He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.” He watches over helpless infants, and holds His protecting hand over them (Matthew 18:10; Psalms 91:11-13).—Krummacher: Joash is a voiceless, yet a mighty, preacher of the security of the elect of God.—When the godless appear to have succeeded in the attainment of their objects, and believe that they have conquered, the very moment of their victory is the unperceived commencement of their ruin. The cross of Christ was the victory of His enemies, but this very victory was what brought about their total defeat. 2 Kings 11:4-12. Joash’s Elevation to the Throne. (a) How it was determined upon and prepared, 2 Kings 11:4-8. (Jehoiada took the initiative in it, for it was his right and duty. It was no rebellion and conspiracy against a just authority, but a fact by itself. Rebels violate law and right in order that they may rule; Jehoiada restored law and right, and did not wish to rule; he remained what he was. He conducted himself with courage, but also with wisdom and prudence. See Historical, § 3). (b) How it was carried out and accomplished, 2 Kings 11:9-12. (With the participation and approval of the different classes of the entire people, without conspiracy, bloodshed, or violence; in the house of God, whose servant the king was; the crown and the law were given into his hands; he was anointed; significant symbols of his calling as king of the people of God.) 2 Kings 11:4. Jehoiada, a faithful priest, such as is pleasing to God (1 Samuel 2:35). It is not hard to proclaim the word of God, when the mighty and great of this world hold to it, but the faithfulness which is needed in the stewards of God’s mysteries is that which will not be stayed or impaired, when the great of this world despise and persecute the word; which will sail against the wind of courtly or popular favor, and will persevere in patience (1 Corinthians 4:1-2).—Wόrt. Summ.: The servants of the Church in the New Testament have not the same calling as the high-priests in the Old, so that they have not to meddle with worldly affairs.—Where spiritual and worldly authority go hand in hand, where both unite for the sake of God and for His cause, there the Lord gives blessing and prosperity. 2 Kings 11:5 sq. Kyburz: Jehoiada teaches us by his example that we ought not to shun either danger or labor in a just cause, but also that we should go prudently to work. 2 Kings 11:9 sq. To take weapons in hand and risk one’s life for one’s country, redounds to the glory and honor of any nation. 2 Kings 11:12. The word of God says: “By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth” (Proverbs 8:16). Therefore kings should be crowned in the house of God. Starke: The crown and the law of the Lord belong together. God give to Christendom princes who love His Word! 2 Kings 11:13-16. Athaliah’s Fall, (a) Her last appearance, 2 Kings 11:13-14. (She comes boldly and impudently into the midst of the people, blinded to their disposition towards her. Insolently relying upon her imagined majesty, she commands resistance to the movement which is in progress—a faithful type of many tyrants. Pride goes before a fall.) (b) Her terrible end, 2 Kings 11:15-16. (Abandoned, despised, and hated by all the people, who rejoice over her fall, she goes to meet her doom, and receives the fate which her deeds deserve. “All they that take the sword,” &c. Matthew 26:52. She is punished by that by which she had sinned.)—And all the people rejoiced. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ C.—The reign of Joash (or Jehoash)2 Kings 11:21 to 2 Kings 12:21 (2 Chronicles 24)21Seven years old was Jehoash when he began to reign. 2 Kings 12:1 In the seventh year of Jehu, Jehoash began to reign; and forty years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Zibiah of Beer-sheba. 2And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein [because] Jehoiada the priest instructed him. 3But the high places were not taken away: the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places. 4And Jehoash said to the priests, All the [consecrated] money [omit of the dedicated things] that is [wont to be] brought into the house of the Lord, even the money of every one that passeth the account [current money, both], the money that every man is set at, and all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the house of the Lord, 5let the priests take it to them, every man of his acquaintance: and let them repair the breaches of the house, wheresoever any breach [every defect which] shall be found. 6But it was so, that in the three and twentieth year of king Jehoash the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house. 7Then king Jehoash called for Jehoiada the priest, and the other priests, and said unto them, Why repair ye not the breaches of the house? now therefore receive no more money of your acquaintance, but [save that ye] deliver it for the breaches of the house. 8And the priests consented to receive no more money of the people, neither to repair the breaches of the house. 9But Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and bored a hole in the lid of it, and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one cometh into the house of the Lord: and the priests that kept the door put therein all the money that was brought into the house of the Lord. 10And it was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest, that the king’s scribe and the high priest came up, and they put [it] up in bags, and told the money that was found in the house of the Lord. 11And they gave the money, being told, into the hands of them that did the work, that had the oversight of the house of the Lord: and they laid it out to the carpenters and builders, that wrought upon the house of the Lord, 12and to masons, and hewers of stone, and to buy timber and hewed stone to repair the breaches of the house of the Lord, and for all that was laid out for the house to repair it. 13Howbeit there were not made for the house of the Lord bowls of silver, snuffers, basins [for sprinkling], trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of the Lord: 14but they gave that to the workmen [commissioners], and repaired therewith the house of the Lord. 15Moreover they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen: 16for they dealt faithfully. The trespass-money and sin-money was not brought into the house of the Lord: it was the priests’. 17Then Hazael king of Syria went up, and fought against Gath, and took it: and Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem. 18And Jehoash king of Judah took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram, and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own hallowed things, and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of the Lord, and in the king’s house, and sent it to Hazael king of Syria: and he went away from Jerusalem. 19And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 20And his servants arose, and made a conspiracy, and slew Joash in the house of Millo, which goeth down to Silla. 21For Jozachar the son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad the son of Shomer, his servants, smote him, and he died; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David: and Amaziah his son reigned in his stead. AND 2 Kings 11:21. Jehoash was seven years old, &c. The parallel record in 2 Chronicles 24 is indeed more detailed than the one before us, and supplements it in some essential particulars, but it is not by any means an “actual transmutation” of it (Bertheau). Both accounts may well have been drawn from the same original document, since they are word for word the same in some parts.—The name of the mother of Jehoash is given, as is usual in regard to the kings of Judah throughout the history. On Beersheba see note on 1 Kings 19:3.—The words in 2 Kings 12:2 : All his days that Jehoiada the priest instructed him, cannot have the sense that Jehoash did, his whole life long, that which was right in the sight of God (Thenius, Ewald), for this was not true in view of what is related in 2 Chronicles 24:17-25, which is confirmed by Matthew 23:35, and which Thenius himself admits must have “historical foundation.” The Chronicler writes: “All the days of Jehoiada the priest,” i. e., so long as Jehoiada lived. The sense is, therefore, that Jehoash did what was right because, and so long as, Jehoiada was his instructor. Hence the Sept. translate; πάσαςτὰςἡμέρας, ἃςἐφώτιζεναὐτὸν ’Ιωιαδὲ ὁ ἱερεύς; and the Vulgate: cunctis diebus, quibus docuit eum Jojada sacerdos; so also De Wette and Luther [and the E. V.]. Keil: “All his days that, i. e., all that part of his life in which Jehoiada instructed or guided him.” For the use of ΰωׁ ?ψ he refers to Ew. § 331, c, 3. [The suffix is repeated after ΰωׁ ?ψ except in general expressions of time, place, and manner.] For the suffix in ιξιε he refers to 2 Kings 13:14. The athnach cannot be held to be decisive in this case. For the rest, it does not follow, when we translate: “All his days, because Jehoiada instructed him,” that he continued to do well even after Jehoiada’s death. Grotius remarks on the statement: “Sic bonus Nero, quamdiu Seneca usus est magistro. [If the suffix in ιξιε is retained, then the massoretic punctuation is correct; the athnach has its ordinary force; ΰωׁ ?ψ must be translated “because;” and the sense is that he was a good king all his life long, because of the good instruction which he received in his youth from Jehoiada. That is the simple grammatical statement of the book of Kings. If the ε at the end of ιξιε can be sacrificed, then the athnach must be removed and Jehoiada is a genitive depending on ιξι. Let it be observed that this suffix is neglected in the versions of the Chron., Sept., and Vulg., quoted above. The sense then is that he was good as long as Jehoiada lived. This last has in its favor that it is consistent with the account in Chron. Bδhr translates by “because,” preserving the suffix in ιξιε, and tries to interpret the other meaning into this translation. The words: “He did well all his days, because Jehoiada was his instructor,” would never suggest that he ceased to do well after his teacher died. This attempt is fruitless, and we must make choice between the alternatives presented above—either to sacrifice the suffix in ιξιε, and bring the account here into consistency with that in Chron., or to hold to the text and admit the discrepancy. It is a proceeding which a sound criticism cannot approve, to alter the text in the interest of supposed reconciliations. The rendering of the E. V. saves the suffix, and still produces the other sense by translating ΰωׁ ?ψ, “wherein,” but this is entirely contrary to the usage of the language. It would require a prep. and suffix after ΰωׁ ?ψ, referring back to ιξιε.—W. G. S.] On sacrifices on the high places, see note on 1 Kings 3:2. 2 Kings 12:4. And Jehoash said to the priests, &c. The temple had fallen out of repair, not so much on account of its age (it had only been standing for 130 years) as because it had not been properly preserved under the previous reigns, nay, even had been injured by Athaliah and her sons, and the money intended to keep it in repair had been misappropriated to the worship of Baal (2 Chronicles 24:7). The king therefore called upon the priests, whose calling it was, to take measures for the restoration and repair of the building, and, to this end, to collect the same tax which Moses had once laid for the purpose of building the tabernacle (2 Chronicles 24:6). λַּ ?μλֶּ ?ρֶ ?σδַ ?χֳּ ?γַ ?ωִׁ ?ινεβε, i. e., all the sliver which was wont to be brought into the sanctuary, and to be given for its purposes. This is now defined more particularly by the following words, λֶּ ?ρֶ ?σςֹ ?αֵ ?ψ, i. e., not “floating money,” irregular income, money from mere accidental gifts (Ewald), but current money (Luther: das gang und gebe ist. Cf. Genesis 23:16, where the expression cannot be taken in any other way). It does not mean coined money, for the Hebrews had no coined money before the exile, so far as we know, but pieces of silver which had a fixed weight, and which were weighed out from man to man in the transaction of business. The reason why this kind of money was called for was, that “it was to be paid out at once to mechanics for their labor” (Thenius). Keil, following the rabbis, insists upon the translation: “money of the numbered,” referring back to Exodus 30:13 sq. (λָּ ?μΞδַ ?ςֹ ?αֵ ?ψςַ ?μΞδַ ?τְּ ?χֻ ?γִ ?ιν); but against this translation there is the decisive consideration that it does not say: “money of him who passeth among the numbered,” but simply: “money which passes over,” that is, which passes from hand to hand in the transaction of affairs. The special cases are then mentioned in which this kind of money usually came into the treasury. The first is the one mentioned and ordained Leviticus 27:2 sq. (cf. Numbers 18:15), when any one fulfilled a vow. In this case, the priest had to fix the sum to be paid according to the sex, age, &c., of the one who had made the vow. This ransom was appropriated in the time of Moses to the support of the sanctuary. The second case was where any one brought money as a gift to the sanctuary of his own free will.—According to the account in 2 Chron., the king ordered the priests to go out through the cities of Judah, and to collect the tax year by year. This does not contradict the statement before us, but rather serves to explain the words in 2 Kings 12:5 : “every man of his acquaintance.” The dependence was upon free-will offerings, as was the case in reference to the tabernacle (Exodus 35:21); the priests and levites were to exert themselves to collect these, each one in his own city and in his own circle. It is to be observed that the king did not demand of the priests that they should give up, for the repairs of the temple, any income which properly came to themselves, but that he only laid claim, for this purpose, to the funds which Moses had ordained should be used in this way. 2 Kings 12:6. But it was so, that in the three and twentieth year, &c. According to 2 Chronicles 24:5, the king had commanded the priests to hasten, “but they did not hasten.” Even in the 23d year of the reign of Jehoash, i. e., in the year in which there was a change of occupant of the throne of Israel (2 Kings 13:1), the priests had not yet attended to the repairs of the temple, or, at best, had only attended to them very imperfectly. We cannot tell how long before his 23d year he had commanded them to see to it, but it was certainly not in his first year, when he was only seven years old. He now proposes that he will take the matter into his own hands, and adopt other measures for accomplishing it, to which they agree. This interpretation is enforced by ιֵ ?ΰֹ ?ϊεּ, 2 Kings 12:8 : “they consented” (Sept., συνεφώνησαν, cf. Genesis 34:15; Genesis 34:22-23), which cannot possibly mean: “They were obliged to yield to the determination of the king” (Thenius). ϊִּ ?χְ ?ηεּ and the following words, 2 Kings 12:7, “It was placed αְּ ?ωַׁ ?ςַ ?ψ of the House of the Lord, do not contain a strict command, but rather a proposal: nolite ergo amplius accipere (Vulg.), otherwise the corresponding statement would be that they “obeyed,” not that they “consented.” Only after the king had taken the matter into his own hands did he give orders (2 Chronicles 24:8) to make a chest, &c. [The commentators differ widely in their judgment of the conduct of the priests in this matter, some seizing eagerly upon an incident which reflects discreditably upon them, others insisting upon a construction which shall exonerate them entirely. Bδhr does not take up the point distinctly in this place. Yet 2 Kings 12:8 is very obscure, and it is important for its elucidation to understand the attitude of the priests. The disposition of the priests is the key to the situation, and the correct conception of that point is the key to the correct exegesis of the verse. The impression is unavoidable that the first effort failed because it was in the hands of the priests. The payments in liquidation of vows were appropriated to the support of the worship. According to the Chronicler an especial demand was made for free-will offerings for the repairs, and “that which it came into the heart of any man to give” must be understood of offerings for this special end. Otherwise we might think that it referred simply to pious gifts, which the priests were wont to retain for themselves, and which the giver expected that they would retain. If we adopt the statement of the Chronicler, then, it is clear that the priests could not have used the money for themselves without embezzlement. In any case the re-appropriation to the repairs of the temple of sums which they had probably been using for some time (especially during the prevalence of idolatry) for their own support, must have curtailed their resources. That they gave them up willingly, is not to be supposed. Sums thus appropriated, but left in the administration of persons all whose interests were opposed to this use, would not probably be found to suffice for an energetic prosecution of the work. This would also check the zeal, and stop the offerings, of the people. The systematic revenue of the priests under the Mosaic constitution had been broken up during the time of apostasy; they had been obliged to make use of all the revenues of whatever kind for their own support; and the incident does not seem, when viewed fairly, to prove any extraordinary selfishness on their part. The king now, seeing that the measures he had taken to accomplish his object had only served to frustrate it, ordered them not to receive any more money for themselves, but to devote all they received to this object. Between 2 Kings 12:7-8 a discussion must be understood in which the priests explained the defects in the practical workings of this scheme, and the result was an agreement that they should neither serve as collectors of the money nor be responsible for the repairs. They put the whole matter out of their hands. (See Histor. § 3.)—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 12:9. But Jehoiada the priest took a chest, &c. The king did not even now exclude the priests from all share in the work, but took his measures in conjunction with the chief-priest, and also appointed “the priests that kept the door” to receive the money. The chest had a hole in its lid, into which the money was dropped. It was locked, and was only opened when it was full. Its position was by the side of the altar, on the right as one entered the temple. Instead of this we read in Chronicles: ηεּ ?φָ ?δ, i. e., “outside.” It did not, therefore, stand in the middle of the priests’ court (Thenius), but outside of it, at the entrance-gate which was on its right. According to 2 Chronicles 24:9-10, the king caused this arrangement to be proclaimed throughout the whole country; it was joyfully heard, and the people now gave abundantly. [The most reasonable explanation of this is, that, under the new arrangement, a man saw his gift placed in the chest. He knew that this was inaccessible to all except the appointed officers, and that his gift was, therefore, sure to be applied to the object for which he gave it. The share of the priests was reduced to the mechanical duty of receiving the money and placing it in the chest.—W. G. S.] When the chest was full, the priest sent his scribe, i. e., a civil secretary, and, in his presence, the chest was opened. This “was done, not out of distrust of the priests, but because the repairs were a matter of state interest, and not merely an affair of the priests. The temple was the chief sanctuary of the nation, of the theocracy, and it was under the supervision of the king” (Lisco). The money was bound up in bags and counted (cf. 2 Kings 5:23). (The Chronicler has εִ ?ιςָ ?ψεּ for εַ ?ιָּ ?φֻ ?ψεּ, i. e., they emptied out. So the Vulg. also on the verse before us: effundebantque et numerabant pecuniam.) “The binding up in bags is mentioned before the counting because the pieces were not counted separately. They were bound up in bags and these were weighed in order thus to estimate the sum which had been received” (Keil).—Them… that had the oversight of the House of the Lord, to whom the money was given (2 Kings 12:11), are those who had to oversee the building. According to 2 Chronicles 34:12, they were levites. The keri δξτχγιν is supported by 2 Kings 22:5. The sense remains the same. These overseers then paid the wages to the artisans of different kinds, and purchased the necessary building materials.—The statement in 2 Kings 12:13-14 does not contradict 2 Chronicles 24:14. It is there stated that, when the building was finished, and still some money remained, this was placed at the disposition of the king and the high-priest, who used it to procure gold and silver utensils. On these utensils, see 1 Kings 7:50.—No accounts were demanded of the overseers of the building, we are told in 2 Kings 12:15, because they were implicitly trusted. 2 Kings 22:7 shows that there is no reference here to a presumed infidelity of the priests, for the same words are used there, where the priests had not had anything at all to do with the work. It is only intended to call attention to the conscientiousness with which this work was taken in hand, inasmuch as the most trustworthy men were charged with it. The remark in 2 Kings 12:16 has a similar object, viz., to show that the priests did not suffer on account of the new arrangement, but that the revenues which properly belonged to them, those from the trespass-offerings and the sin-offerings, were still given to them. On the trespass-offerings, see Numbers 5:8 sq., and Leviticus 5:16. According to the law, the priest received no money from the sin-offering. We must, therefore, suppose that it had become customary to give them a voluntary gift of money besides the flesh of the sacrifice (Leviticus 6:24). 2 Kings 12:17. Then Hazael, king of Syria, went up, &c. This expedition belongs to the time when Jehoiada was already dead, and Jehoash had fallen into sin, as is clear from 2 Chronicles 24:15-22. As Gath, one of the five cities of the Philistines (Joshua 13:3), lay much farther south than Samaria, and was almost due west of Jerusalem towards the sea-coast, this expedition against it forces us to assume that Israel had been already conquered by Hazael (2 Kings 13:3). We must leave undecided whether Gath at that time belonged to Judah, or had fallen again into the possession of the Philistines. As Jerusalem was not far off, the conqueror was led to attack it next, but he was induced, by the surrender of the treasures, to withdraw. It is certain that 2 Chronicles 24:23 sq. does not refer to another, earlier expedition, as Thenius asserts. That account does not contradict the one before us; on the contrary it supplements it “most fittingly, for it is very improbable ΰ priori that Jehoash purchased peace by this heavy sacrifice, until after he had suffered the shameful defeat of which the Chronicler gives an account. Moreover, the fact that the Syrians withdrew without prosecuting their victory farther is explained by this peace thus purchased” (Bertheau). 2 Kings 12:18. And Jehoash…. took all the hallowed things, &c. Clericus answers the question why, if there was such a store of these valuable articles, they were not used for the repairs, instead of collecting taxes and offerings, as follows: Credibile est, res consecratas, quarum hic fit mentio, vasa fuisse sacra, quae vendere aut in monetam constare et cudere nolebant, ut servarentur in extremζ necessitatis casus, qualis hic erat, ubi Jerosolymζ et totius regni agebatur. In regard to the implied statement that offerings had been dedicated by Jehoram and Ahaziah, who walked in the way of the house of Ahab (2 Kings 8:18; 2 Kings 8:27), let it be observed that these kings did not formally abolish the worship of Jehovah, but only introduced the worship of Baal by the side of it, and, in order not to come into an open conflict with the people and the influential priesthood, they even made offerings to the temple of Jehovah. The utensils which, according to 2 Chronicles 24:7, Athaliah and her sons had taken from the temple, and misappropriated to the service of Baal, “had no doubt been restored to their original purpose before the occasion mentioned in 2 Kings 11:18” (Thenius). 2 Kings 12:20. And his servants arose, &c. The Chronicler here gives a very essential addition to the narrative. He states in detail the reasons for the conspiracy, and the occasion of it. The conspirators murdered the king in his bed, where he was confined by wounds, probably by those received in the war with the Syrians.—αֵּ ?ιϊξִ ?μֹּ ?ΰ Thenius translates: “In the castle-palace.” Millo was a castle or tower, it is true (see above, note on 1 Kings 9:15; cf. 2 Samuel 5:9), but αֵּ ?ιϊ can hardly refer to a particular building inside this castle. If it did, we should need to have δַ ?ξִּ ?μֹּ ?ΰ, with the article, as in the other places. As a complete fortress in itself, Millo might be called αּ ?ιϊ. The more definite description δַ ?ιֹּ ?ψֵ ?γρִ ?μָּ ?ΰ is itself obscure. No one of the explanations proposed deserves decided preference to the others. All the old versions take ρִ ?μָּ ?ΰ as a proper name, and this certainly seems more correct than to consider it identical with ξְ ?ρִ ?μָּ ?δ, a street, as Grotius and Thenius do, or with ρֻ ?μָּ ?ν, slope or ascent, as Ewald does.—In 2 Kings 12:21, instead of: “Jozachar, the son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad, the son of Shomer,” the Chronicler has: “Zabad, the son of Shimeath, an Ammonitess, and Jehozabad, the son of Shimrith, a Moabitess.” We must give the preference to this latter statement as the more complete, for the designation of the two mothers instead of the two fathers, as an Ammonitess and a Moabitess, cannot be an invention of the Chronicler, but is taken from the original document. Perhaps it is stated to show that the murderers were not of Jewish descent, but came from foreign mothers. “ζָ ?αָ ?γ is a mistake for ζָ ?λָ ?ψ, and this is a shorter form for ιεֹ ?ζλψ” (Keil), and ωֹׁ ?ξψ may have arisen from the defective form ωִׁ ?ξψϊ by dropping the ϊ. [“Although the names (as given in Kings) are certainly historical, yet it is very remarkable that the etymology of them, Jehovah-remembers, son of Hearing, and Jehovah-awards, son of Watcher, suggests the last words of Zechariah: ‘Jehovah sees it and will requite it’ ” (Thenius).] The further statement of the Chronicler: “and they buried him in the city of David, but they buried him not in the sepulchres of the kings,” does not contradict this record. “He was buried in the city of David, where his fathers were buried, but not in the sepulchres of the kings” (Bertheau), probably on account of the action mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:17 sq. AND ETHICAL1. The author chooses out of the history of the forty years’ reign of Jehoash the restoration of the temple, of which he speaks particularly, and passes over the other incidents which the Chronicler narrates. He would hardly have done this if he had seen in this restoration nothing more than a matter of ordinary business routine, a necessity which had arisen in the course of time. The temple, as the dwelling of Jehovah in the midst of His people, is the visible sign and pledge of the covenant (see note on the Temple after the Exeg. section on 1 Kings 6). The covenant of Jehovah was solemnly restored and renewed at the elevation of the rescued scion of the house of David to the throne, and the temple, the sign and pledge of this covenant, which had become dilapidated, and had been plundered, under Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah, could not be left in that condition. On the contrary, it must be the chief task of the new king of the dynasty of David, who had sworn to the covenant on his accession, to restore the temple during his reign. As David was the founder, and Solomon the builder, of the House of Jehovah, so Jehoash, with whom the House of David recommenced, as it were, was the restorer of the sanctuary. We have here, therefore, a theocratic action, a physical confession of faith, and a seal upon the renewal and restoration of the covenant. This is why it is so especially mentioned as the most important incident in the reign of Jehoash. The reason why Jehoash, when he undertook the restoration of the temple, unquestionably at the instigation of Jehoiada, did not carry out the work at the expense of the royal treasury, but called upon the whole people to contribute, as Moses had once done for the tabernacle (Exodus 25:2-9), was not that “the crown was not then by any means able, as it had been in Solomon’s time, to carry out such, works by itself” (Ewald), but rather, in order that the entire people might give a physical proof that it had renewed the covenant with Jehovah (2 Kings 11:17). 2. King Jehoash was not by any means a ruler who was distinguished for intellect and strength. Lack of independence, and moral weakness, were the most noticeable features of his character. He had in Jehoiada the support which he needed. After the death of this counsellor and guide, he became, although he was already advanced in life, vacillating, and fell into evil courses. It was a great weakness on the part of one who had renewed the covenant with Jehovah, and rebuilt the temple, to yield to the entreaties of the chiefs of Judah, who flattered him by their cringing sub-missiveness, and to allow them (2 Chronicles 24:17 sq.) the forbidden, lascivious worship of Astarte (see Exeg. on 1 Kings 11:5). It was something more than weakness that he caused Zechariah, the son of his former counsellor, to be stoned, when he condemned this mistaken course, and predicted calamity (2 Chronicles 24:20 sq.). No less weak was his conduct in his dealings with Hazael. Instead of making a vigorous opposition to him, trusting in God, as Hezekiah did (chap. 19), he surrendered to him, although he had only a small force, all the consecrated offerings which his ancestors had made to the temple, and all those which he himself had dedicated up to this point in his reign, in order to induce him to withdraw (2 Kings 12:18 sq.; 2 Chronicles 24:24). [Observe, however, the Exegetical note on 2 Kings 12:17, quotation from Bertheau, at the end.—W. G. S.] It is very possible that he had embittered the people against him by all this, and thus given occasion for the conspiracy, as a result of which he fell. “He was the first king of Judah who came to a violent end at the hands of his own subjects, and the discontent was so great that he was not even buried in the royal sepulchres. Such was the disgraceful end of one whose childhood was marked by such wonderful providences” (Schlier). He shows us, by his example, whither weakness in a prince may lead. It is not only a something wanting, but it is the weightiest sin. Ewald contradicts himself when he says, basing the statement upon αָּ ?μΞιָ ?ξָ ?ιε, 2 Kings 12:2 : “He adopted the principles of his teacher with such docility that he remained true to them even after he came of age,” and then says again, a few pages further on: “Heathenism may indeed have gained a footing again under his weak rule.” This view also contradicts the statement in 2 Chronicles 24:22, whose historical truth is admitted. Thenius also forces the words λָּ ?μΞιָ ?ξָ ?ιε in such a way that he calls Jehoash a “praiseworthy king,” and speaks of his “good reign,” and of his “continuous good conduct.” In regard to the narrative of the Chronicler, which is inconsistent with this view, he remarks, giving it a strained and unnatural construction: “Probably this command (to stone Zechariah) was given by Jehoash in a moment of rage, and was forced from him, as it were, by Zechariah’s enemies.” But, even if we let this pass, the “purchase of a peace from Hazael by a shameful surrender” was not the act of a. “praiseworthy king;” and the murder of Jehoash was not a “mere act of revenge.” The pains which are taken to present this king in any other light than that in which he appears in these two biblical records, are all spent in vain. The opinion that “Psalms 51 contains a prayer of Jehoash in deep penitence for his error” (Thenius), must be regarded as very mistaken. Neither can it be inferred from these historical records, as it is by Vaihinger (in Herzog, Realencyc., vi. s. 717), that the prophet Joel belongs to the time of this king, and that his prophecies apply to the events of this reign. 3. In regard to the conduct of the priests in reference to the restoration of the temple which the king had commanded, the opinions are very divergent. The assertion of J. D. Michaelis and De Wette, that the priests had embezzled the funds collected for this object, is to be summarily dismissed. Thenius goes still further, and says: “They (the priests) did nothing towards carrying out the project, because the royal command appropriated a part, probably no insignificant part, of the revenues of the priests, in the intention of diminishing their arrogance.… The priesthood may have fallen greatly in a moral point of view since Athaliah’s influence had brought the Jehovah-religion into neglect, and their attention may have been exclusively directed to their own selfish interest.… Probably the priests had kept the free-will offerings, which were intended for the repairs of the temple, entirely for their own use, contrary to law.” But the text does not say that the king intended to restrict the revenues of the priests; on the contrary, it is expressly stated (2 Kings 12:16) that this was not done. Neither is there any hint of any moral decay in the priesthood. [The idea that the priests were guilty of any arrogance which needed curbing is certainly imported into the case. It is ΰ priori very unlikely that they would be guilty of this fault on emerging from the circumstances in which they had been during the previous years. Arrogance is the sin of long and great prosperity. The ΰ priori probability that the priesthood had suffered in morale during the prevalence of idolatry is great, also that their revenues had been greatly impaired.—W. G. S.] The king would never have commissioned them to undertake the management of this work, if they had had the reputation of being dishonest in money matters. Still less, if unfaithfulness and cheating on their part had been the cause that the contributions did not flow in in sufficient abundance, would he have “asked these priests for their consent (2 Kings 12:8) to the change of his first arrangements, and to the new measures which he proposed. Moreover, he would not have charged the priests who guarded the door to receive the money and put it in the chest, which arrangement still left them an opportunity for dishonesty” (Keil). [The circumstantial description of the box, its arrangement and position, show that it was intended to free the priests from any suspicion, just or not, which attached to them. If the suspicion was unjust, they were most interested in a public arrangement for the reception of these contributions which should free them from it. It is enough to suppose that, when all the money, that intended for themselves and that intended for the repairs, came into their hands, the distribution of it according to the intentions of the givers may have been uncertain and imperfect. At any rate, the givers could not be certain that their money would reach its destined object. Any such popular distrust would, according to all experience, speedily reduce the contributions to a very languid flow. The chest-arrangement now accomplished two objects. It permitted the giver to divide his offering for the temple from the offering for the priests, and to see for himself that it was at once put where it could not be applied otherwise than as he intended. The true force of 2 Kings 12:16 is that, at this time, the revenues of the temple were divided and definitely appropriated, and that the sorts of revenue there mentioned were specifically set apart for the support of the priests. When the priests’ share in the transaction was limited to the reception of the money and its immediate deposition in a receptacle, which is expressly declared to have been in the most public place in the temple enclosure, it was impossible to suspect them any longer of dishonesty, unless they were most accomplished rogues. There is no express mention of any dishonesty in the record, but this arrangement with the chest has unquestionably suggested a suspicion which has always been felt by readers of the passage. See also bracketed note under Exegetical on 2 Kings 12:8.—W. G. S.] On the other hand, the reason for the new scheme was not “simply this, that the first plan had proved inadequate for the purpose,” because the king “had not appropriated any definite sum for the repairs of the temple, but had left it to the priests to pay for the repairs out of the gross sum received” (Keil). The text itself gives the true reason in clear and definite words (2 Chronicles 24:5): “The levites hastened it not,” as the king had commanded them. [If this were the only reason, the pertinency of the arrangement with the chest would not be apparent.—W. G. S.] The reason was not, therefore, dishonesty and embezzlement on the part of the priests and levites, but their lack of zeal, their indifference and neglect in an affair in which they, as servants of the sanctuary, ought to have been most interested. It is as impossible to acquit them of all blame as it is to convict them of dishonesty. When a chest was placed in the temple for the sole purpose of receiving the offerings for this purpose, and when particular officers were designated to take charge of the fund, there was an end of the languid activity of the priests and levites in the collection of the contributions. Each one who came to the temple brought his gift cheerfully, as is distinctly stated in 2 Chronicles 24:10. De Wette’s assertion that the Chronicler “smoothed over” the matter, out of his well-known affection for the priesthood, is entirely arbitrary, for the record does not contain a syllable about unfaithfulness; it states, on the contrary, that it was the priests who received the money and placed it in the chest, under the second plan. [From the note on 2 Kings 12:8 and the inserted remarks in the above section, it will be seen that this delineation of the “conduct of the priests” in this matter is not satisfactory. If we look at the record without unfair partisan feeling either against or in behalf of the priests, we cannot avoid the conviction that their fault was not limited to a want of zeal in the collection of funds, but that it was connected with their administration of the money. In 2 Kings 12:4 the king charged them to take certain moneys and use them for the repairs of the temple. He addressed them because they were the proper parties to be commissioned to do this work. It was not until they proved incompetent, in some way or other, that it was taken out of their hands, or that they gave it up. The revenues which are specified in 2 Kings 12:4 are, 1, that at which “every man is set,” which is to us very obscure, but is probably correctly explained in the Exegetical note on the verse; and 2, free-will offerings which the priests were to solicit of their acquaintances. In the king’s twenty-third year the work had not been done. There was fault somewhere. In 2 Kings 12:7 the king’s address distinctly implies that the work had not been done because the money which had been received from the “acquaintances” of the priests had not been appropriated to this purpose. Various reasons for this are suggested in the translator’s note on 2 Kings 12:7, which are sufficient without assuming that the priests had dishonestly taken for themselves what had been intended for another use. It is very probable that the revenues had never been distinguished in a manner sufficiently definite, or that, if they had formerly been definitely distinguished and appropriated, they had been used indiscriminately for the support of the priests, during the troubles of the last two reigns, and had not all together more than sufficed for this purpose. 2 Kings 12:16 implies that the various revenues were now definitely appropriated, and one of the advantages of the chest-plan was that it served to distinguish them. The reply of the priests to this reproach and command (2 Kings 12:7) is not given, but they consented to yield up the entire work and the entire responsibility. This gap between 2 Kings 12:7-8 is the place at which the various inventions, more or less derogatory to the priests, find entrance. It is as fair as any supposition which can be made, and accords as well with 2 Kings 12:8, to suppose that they denied the imputation, pointed out the difficulty in distinguishing the revenues intended for the temple from those intended for the priests, and surrendered the responsibility both for the money and for the work. The plan then adopted, which put this money by itself, and out of the control of the priests, proves conclusively that the work had not been accomplished because the money intended for it passed through their hands. Their administration of it had been defective, to say the least; it is not necessary to conclude that it had been intentionally dishonest.—W. G. S.] AND (2 Chronicles 24 is to be compared throughout as a supplementary record.) 2 Kings 12:1-21. The Reign of King Jehoash. (a) During Jehoiada’s life-time, 2 Kings 12:1-16; (b) after his death, 2 Kings 12:17-21. 2 Kings 12:1-4. Kyburz: Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child! (Ecclesiastes 10:16) but blessed is the nation, the youth of whose prince is in just and holy guidance. Such good fortune had Judah under the guardian care of the wise and experienced Jehoiada.—That which appears to be the greatest misfortune for a child, to be left fatherless and motherless at an early age, often becomes a great blessing in the gracious Providence of God. What would have become of Jehoash if he had been brought up at the court of his idolatrous father and his depraved mother? God gave him in Jehoiada far more than he had lost in his father and his mother.—There is no greater blessing possible for a young prince, who comes to the throne in his youth, than to have a wise counsellor. Would that God might give to every prince a Jehoiada! The first duty of a prince is to pray God for such an one, and to listen to his counsel.—None need instruction more than those who are called to govern; there is no more responsible calling than that of instructing those who will have to rule. Unfortunately this task is rarely entrusted to those who, like Jehoiada, are fitted for it by age, learning, experience, and piety. Wόrt. Summ.: We ought to pray to God for wise counsellors, to thank Him for them, to pray for long life for them, and to regard it as a heavy divine punishment when He takes them away (Jeremiah 3:4). 2 Kings 12:3. The same: Rulers ought not to allow themselves to be restrained from carrying out what is good and right from any fear of persons, lest they may possibly incur the disfavor of the people. There never was a prince who was not himself guilty of faults and errors, as we see here from the example of Jehoash, who did not abolish the sacrifices on the high places. 2 Kings 12:4-16. The Restoration of the Sanctuary. (a) The king’s command to undertake it; (b) the conduct of the priests in the matter (see Historical, § 3). It is true that God does not dwell in temples made with hands (1 Kings 8:27; Acts 7:48); we can worship Him as well in a ruin as in the most magnificent church. But when the building, in which a congregation assembles to worship God, to hear His word, and to receive the means of grace, is left ruinous, God does not receive the honor which belongs to Him. Where the churches fall to ruins, there religion and piety also fall into decay; but where there is love of God and joy in His word, there no ruinous churches are seen. A time in which magnificent palaces, theatres, and ball-rooms are repaired or built at great expense, but in which the houses of God are left small, wretched, dirty, and ruinous, is a time of religious decay, and resembles the time of Athaliah in Judah.—The apostle says of the Christian church: “For ye are the temple of the living God” (2 Corinthians 6:16). This temple also may in time become ruinous through unbelief, worldly life and behavior, and immorality. Where are the congregations in which there is nothing ruinous or decayed, in which nothing could be improved? How many are in ruins and are ready to fall! He who destroys the temple of God, or allows it to be destroyed, him will God destroy (1 Corinthians 3:17). We cannot indeed repair those breaches by money. They can only be repaired by coming to the living stone, which is rejected of men, but which is chosen of God (1 Peter 2:4-6). 2 Kings 12:4-5. The congregation ought to be called upon to contribute to religious objects, which can only be accomplished by expending money. How long a time often elapses before means enough are collected even for the most necessary objects, not to mention that many give unwillingly (2 Corinthians 9:7). 2 Kings 12:6-8. Works which are pleasing to God cannot be accomplished by careless hands. They are only accomplished where zeal is united with perseverance, patience, and fidelity.—There have always been such careless, indifferent priests and pastors, and there are such yet. They execute their traditional, official duties, but only by routine, and from a sense of duty, not with zeal and enthusiasm. No zeal for the kingdom of God (John 2:17) and for the salvation of souls can be noticed in them. How many a congregation has fallen into decay and remained so, because those who were appointed to be the builders of it, who ought to have repaired and built it, have not raised their negligent hands (Hebrews 12:12). “Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully” (Jeremiah 48:10). Although no earthly king may ever call them to account, yet the heavenly king, before whose judgment-seat they must appear to give an account of their office, will ask: “Why repair ye not the breaches of the house?” 2 Kings 12:10 sq. Wόrt Summ.: In former times, under the papacy, the church authorities excluded all secular persons from the affairs which belonged to the clergy: under the gospel, in some places, secular persons aim to exclude the clergy from all participation in church affairs, and claim to rule alone; so the matter is always wrongly treated, and men go from one mistake to another; this should not be so.—Public account should be rendered of all moneys and gifts which are collected for religious or benevolent purposes, in order that it may be known that they are applied as was designed, and that the giver may be encouraged to further liberality. 2 Kings 12:11-12. The laborer is worthy of his hire. Wages ought to be given punctually to diligent and faithful workmen (Jeremiah 22:13; Leviticus 19:13). 2 Kings 12:13-14. What is necessary and useful is always to be preferred to what is beautiful; only when the former is provided may the latter be thought of. How often the contrary course is pursued. 2 Kings 12:15. What a proud thing it is for builders and workmen when they can be trusted, and it is not necessary to oversee them. When work is carried on honestly and faithfully, then God’s blessing follows. 2 Kings 12:16. Starke: To every one his own, to God what is God’s, to the priests what is theirs (Sir 7:32; 1 Corinthians 9:11).—Let not anything which justly belongs to any one be taken from him. 2 Kings 12:17-21. The Pall of King Jehoash and its Consequences, (a) As long as Jehoiada lived, Jehoash did what was right: when he had lost this support he fell (2 Chronicles 24:15-22). “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12). “It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace” (Hebrews 13:9). How many have begun in the spirit and ended in the flesh (Galatians 3:3). The best instruction cannot preserve against a fall, if the heart is not firm and strong. Only he who endures unto the end shall be saved, therefore: “Be thou faithful,” &c. (Revelation 2:10). The noblest commencement is vain, if the end is perverse and wicked; on the contrary: “All is well that ends well.” (b) At the time when Jehoash had sinned so grievously, one calamity after another came upon him; first, the great defeat (2 Kings 12:17-18), by which he lost all his treasures, then, the conspiracy which cost him his life (2 Kings 12:20-21). So the words of the dying prophet (2 Chronicles 24:22) were fulfilled: “The Lord look upon it and require it!” (2 Chronicles 24:22). So Jehoash was taught what calamities it brings to abandon the Lord God (Jeremiah 2:19). The Lord rewards every one according to his works, whether in this or the next world. What a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Jehoash was marvellously preserved as an infant (2 Kings 11:2-3), he ends his life wretchedly.—Starke: This is an example how near the ruin of a man is when he abandons the good to which he was educated from his youth up, nay, even is glad to be rid of those who annoy him by their warnings. 2 Kings 12:18. A man may buy with money his acquittal from a human tribunal, but not from the just judgment of God; nothing helps here but repentance and a new life (Ezekiel 18:26-28). 2 Kings 12:20-21. All the people shouted to the child-king: “Long live the king!” and rejoiced and blew the trumpets. Conspiracy and murder were the end of his forty-years’ reign. Sic transit gloria mundi. Footnotes: 2 Kings 12:5 (6 of the Hebrew text).—[αָּ ?γֶ ?χ at the end is a predicate defining ΰωׁ ?ψ, all which shall be found… defective, i.e., all the defective places which shall be found. Cf. 2 Kings 8:12. 2 Kings 12:8 (9).—[χְ ?ηַ ?ϊ for χַ ?ηַ ?ϊ, the fem. inf. shortened before makkeph. Cf. Ewald, § 213, a.] 2 Kings 12:9 (10).—[ΰηγ—ΰֲ ?ψεֹ ?οΰֶ ?ηָ ?γ is commonly adjective, but is sometimes used as a dependent substantive, as here. Ew. § 286, d.] 2 Kings 12:12 (13).—[ηָ ?ζְ ?χָ ?δ, fem. abstract subst. In verbs which denote a state we find that the infin. is often supplanted by the subst. which expresses the abstract of the verbal idea. “For repairs” = to repair, with which, however, the object must be supplied (Bφttcher, § 277, 8).—W. G. S.] SECOND SECTION The Monarchy Under Jehoahaz And Joash And Jeroboam II. In Israel, And Under Amaziah In Judah2 Kings 13-14A.—The Reigns of Jehoahaz and Joash2 Kings 13:1-251 In the three and twentieth year of Joash the son of Ahaziah king of Judah, Jehoahaz the son of Jehu began to reign over [became king of] Israel in Samaria, and reigned seventeen years. 2And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, and followed the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin; he departed not therefrom. 3And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he delivered them into the hand of Hazael king of Syria, and into the hand of Ben-hadad the son of Hazael, all their [the] days [of Jehoahaz]. 4And Jehoahaz besought the Lord, [.] [(] And the Lord hearkened unto him: for he saw the oppression of Israel, because [that] the king of Syria oppressed 5them. ([omit(] And the Lord gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime. 6Nevertheless they departed not from the sins of the house of Jeroboam who made Israel sin, but walked therein: and there remained 7[stood] the grove [statue of Astarte] also in Samaria.) Neither did [For] he leave [had left] of the people to Jehoahaz but fifty horsemen, and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen; for the king of Syria had destroyed them, and had made them like the dust by threshing [beneath one’s feet]. 8Now the rest of the acts of Jehoahaz, and all that he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 9And Jehoahaz slept with his fathers; and they buried him in Samaria; and Joash his son reigned in his stead. 10In the thirty and seventh year of Joash king of Judah began Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz to reign over Israel in Samaria, and reigned sixteen years. 11And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord; he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel sin: but he walked therein. 12And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, and his might [,] wherewith [how] he fought against Amaziah king of Judah, are they not writen in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 13And Joash slept with his fathers; and Jeroboam sat upon his throne: and Joash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel. 14Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness whereof he died [was to die]. And Joash the king of Israel came down unto him, and wept over his face, and said, O my father, my father! the Chariot of Israel, and the Horsemen thereof! 15And Elisha said unto him, Take bow and arrows. And he took unto him bow and arrows. 16And he said to the king of Israel, Put thine hand upon the bow. And he put his hand upon it: and Elisha put his hands upon the king’s hands. 17And he said, Open the window eastward. And he opened it. Then Elisha said, Shoot. And he shot. And he said, The [an] arrow of the Lord’s [omit the Lord’s] deliverance [for Jehovah], and the [an] arrow of deliverance from [against] Syria: for thou shalt smite the Syrians in Aphek, till thou have consumed them.18And he said, Take the arrows. And he took them. And he said unto the king of Israel, Smite upon the ground. And he smote thrice, and stayed. 19And the man of God was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed it: whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice. 20And Elisha died, and they buried him. And the [marauding] bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in [commencement] of the year. 21And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men [marauders]; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down [came], and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet. 22But [Now] Hazael king of, Syria [had] oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. 23[,] And [but] the Lord was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto [turned towards] them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet. 24So Hazael king of Syria died; and Ben-hadad his son reigned in his stead. 25And Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz took again out of the hand of Ben-hadad the son of Hazael the cities, which he had taken out of the hand of Jehoahaz his father by [in the] war. Three times did Joash beat him, and recovered the cities of Israel. AND 2 Kings 13:1. In the three and twentieth year of Joash. This chronological statement is not consistent with the one in ver 2 Kings 10 : “In the thirty-seventh year of Joash.” For, if Jehoahaz began to reign in the twenty-third year of Joash, and reigned for seventeen years, his son Jehoash cannot have followed in the thirty-seventh, but in the thirty-ninth, year of Joash of Judah. Again, if Jehoash of Israel became king in the thirty-seventh year of Joash of Judah, then his father Jehoahaz must have come to the throne in the twenty-first, and not in the twenty-third year of Joash of Judah. The old expositors sought to do away with this difficulty by assuming that Jehoash of Israel shared the throne for two years with his father Jehoahaz. This assumption, however, is untenable, both for the general reasons assigned above (Pt. II., p. 88, e) and because it is clearly shown in 2 Kings 13:9-10 that Jehoash did not ascend the throne until after the death of Jehoahaz, and that he had not shared his authority before that. Only one of the two numbers, 23 and 37, can be correct, as is now generally admitted; but the question, which is correct? receives various answers. We start again, as we did above (Pt. II., p. 86), from the established chronological starting-point, 884 b. c., when Jehu became king of Israel, and Athaliah became queen of Judah. Jehu reigned 28 years (2 Kings 10:36), that is, from 884 to 856; his son Jehoahaz 17 years (2 Kings 13:1), from 856–839; Jehoash, 16 years (2 Kings 13:10), 839–823. Athaliah ruled 6 years, and Joash became king in the “seventh year” (2 Kings 11:3-4), that is, 884–877; Joash, 40 years (2 Kings 12:2), 877–837; Amaziah, 29 years, 837–808. It follows that the twenty-third year of Joash of Judah, in which Jehoahaz became king of Israel, according to 2 Kings 13:1, was the year 854, but this cannot be correct because his father Jehu ruled 28 years, and so died in 856. This would bring Jehoahaz’ accession into the twenty-first, not the twenty-third, of Joash. This is the statement of Josephus: εἰκοστῷ δὲ καὶ πρώτῳ ἔτειτῆς ’Ιωάσουβασιλείας. The thirty-seventh year of Joash of Judah, in which, according to 2 Kings 13:10, Jehoash of Israel became king, is the year 840; in the second year of Jehoash of Israel, that is, in the year 838, Amaziah became king of Judah (2 Kings 14:1). According to this reckoning, the death of Joash, the father of Amaziah, does indeed fall in 837, but, in view of the Jewish mode of reckoning which is explained Pt. II., p. 86 sq., a discrepancy of a single year has no significance. Josephus says, in agreement with 2 Kings 13:10 : ἕβδομονἤδηκαὶ τριακοστὸνἔτοςβασιλεύοντος ’Ιωάσουτῆς ’Ιούδαφυλῆς. If, on the other hand, we hold fast the “twenty-third year” in 2 Kings 13:1, and, in 2 Kings 13:10, read thirty-ninth for thirty-seventh, as Ewald, Thenius, and others desire, this thirty-ninth year will be 838, Jehu will only have 26 years, not 28 (2 Kings 10:36), and his son Jehoahaz’ reign, extending from 854 to 838, will amount to 16, not 17 years (2 Kings 13:1); moreover, if Jehoash of Israel did not ascend the throne until 838, and Amaziah became king in Judah in his second year (2 Kings 14:1), then the latter did not become king until 836, though his father did not live, at the utmost, beyond 837. If thirty-seventh is changed into thirty-ninth, then all the other numbers must be changed, and this is inadmissible. If then we let these numbers stand, we must suppose that the words: “in the twenty-third year,” in 2 Kings 13:1, are either a copyist’s error (λρρρβ for λΰ), or, that it is a mistake growing out of the confusion to which the Jewish mode of reckoning gave occasion (see above, Pt. II., p. 86 sq.). All the versions and all the editions have “thirty-seventh” except the Editio Aldina of the Sept. (1518), which has “thirty-ninth.” Keil justly observes that this variant is “nothing but an unfortunate emendation, adopted in order to bring about a reconciliation, but without any critical value.” 2 Kings 13:3. And the anger of the Lord was kindled. The sense and the connection of 2 Kings 13:3-7, are as follows: In the time of Jehu, who, contrary to all just expectations, clung to the calf-worship which Jeroboam had introduced, Jehovah had already commenced to “cut off” from Israel, and had given the land east of the Jordan into the hands of the Syrians (2 Kings 10:32 sq.). Since, however, Jehoahaz, Jehu’s successor, did not take warning, but, on the contrary, during his reign the worship of the image of Astarte was once more introduced (1 Kings 14:15), so that the abolition of idolatry which had been accomplished was rendered ineffectual, God’s anger (i. e., His justice, and His avenging, punishing, rigor) was kindled, so that one defeat followed upon another, until the might of Israel was reduced to a minimum. In his great distress, when he was on the brink of ruin, Jehoahaz at length turned to Jehovah, and besought Him, and the Lord, seeing the distress of His people, answered his prayer and sent a deliverer.—[That is the sense of the passage, but it does not account for the grammatical form and succession of the sentences. The best modern expositors agree with the English translators in making a parenthesis of 2 Kings 13:5-6. The only question is as to where it is to begin, and it seems best, with Thenius and Bunsen, to enclose all after the first clause of 2 Kings 13:4. The explanation then is as follows: Israel was defeated by the Syrians again and again during the reign of Jehoahaz. He turned in his distress to the Lord and sought him. There was no apparent response to this prayer during his lifetime, but the writer inserts a parenthesis to the effect that the prayer was nevertheless heard and answered, that God saw the distress of Israel and sent a champion for them, and yet that they persisted in their sins. The λִּ ?ι at the commencement of 2 Kings 13:7 then presents no further difficulty. It refers back to the first clause of 2 Kings 13:4. Jehoahaz besought the Lord, because He had left but, &c.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 13:3. All the days, i.e., of Jehoahaz, not of Hazael and Benhadad, as is clear from 2 Kings 13:22 [also 2 Kings 13:25 shows that, as a matter of fact, the success of the Syrians did not continue through “the days” of Benhadad.—W. G. S.]. 2 Kings 13:5. A savior, cf. Judges 3:9; Judges 3:15; Nehemiah 9:27. This was Jeroboam II., the grandson of Jehoahaz, as we see clearly from εַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ωִׁ ?ιςֵ ?ν, 2 Kings 14:27, which has an evident reference to ξεֹ ?ωִׁ ?ιςַ in this verse. He completed what had already been begun by Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:25). Reference is here made to him in order to show that he was sent in answer to Jehoahaz’ prayer, although he came so long afterwards. The words: they dwelt in their tents, describe the peaceful state of things which was brought about by the deliverer; in war they did not dwell in tents, but in strongholds and fortified places. 2 Kings 13:6 contains a restriction of what has just been said in 2 Kings 13:5. The peaceful state of things, which was brought about, was not a perfectly happy and satisfactory one, for the worship of Jeroboam’s calves still continued, and even the worship of Asherah (the statue of Astarte) did not cease entirely. Thenius understands ςָֽ ?ξְ ?γָ ?δ to mean that the worship of Asherah “very soon obtained a firm foothold” (i.e., under Jeroboam II.). Ewald also thinks that it was reintroduced at about his time. But the history of Jeroboam II., 2 Kings 14:23-27, contains no mention of it, and also the λִּ ?ι in 2 Kings 13:7 fixes the attention upon the time of Jehoahaz, when the incidents took place which are referred to in 2 Kings 13:7. [This λִּ ?ι does not refer to 2 Kings 13:6 at all. No connection can be established which will make good sense. It refers back to the first clause of 2 Kings 13:4, as shown above. Bδhr’s interpretation, however, is correct, although it is difficult to understand, as Thenius says, how the Astarte-image survived Jehu’s reformation. ςξγδ is better translated “stood,” than “gained firm foot-hold.” δΰωׁ ?ψδ has the article, and the form of statement of the first part of the verse is that the old apostasy of Jeroboam was still continued. If it had been intended to say that this old sin was continued, and that even the one which had been rooted up was reintroduced, it seems that some other word must have been used for ςξγδ which would have expressed this latter idea distinctly.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 13:7 is a continuation of [the first clause of] 2 Kings 13:4. It shows how far the “oppression” of the Syrians had gone. Dathe and Houbigant are in favor of placing it between 2 Kings 13:4-5, but the close connection between these verses forbids this. [For he had left. The English translation: “Neither did he leave,” cannot be defended. It is necessitated by the supposed connection between this clause and the last clause of 2 Kings 13:4. It also seems to understand “the king of Syria” as the subject of δִ ?ωְׁ ?ΰִ ?ιψ, which does not make good sense. The subject of that verb is Jehovah, and the last half of 2 Kings 13:7 repeats the same statement substituting “the king of Syria” (who was the instrument by which it was accomplished), in the place of the ultimate agent. The passage may now be made clear, if we get rid of the parenthesis by putting 2 Kings 13:7 between the first and second clauses of 2 Kings 13:4, as follows: Jehoahaz besought the Lord, for He (the Lord) had left but, … for the king of Syria had destroyed them … and the Lord hearkened unto him, seeing the distress, and gave a deliverer, who delivered them, yet they persisted in their sins.—W. G. S.] The expression λֶּ ?ςָ ?τָ ?ψμָ ?γֻ ?ωׁ does not mean chaff, as Luther understands it, for ςָ ?τָ ?ψ is not dust which floats in the air, but dust which lies upon the ground and is trodden under foot. The fundamental meaning of γּ ?εּ ?ωׁ is, to tread under foot (Habakkuk 3:12; Micah 4:13). There is no reference to the barbarous usage of war referred to in Amos 1:3; 2 Samuel 12:31. [Literally the English for the words would be: dust for treading, i. e., dust which lies beneath one’s feet (see Grammatical note on the verse). It is an expression for utter defeat and destruction. They were reduced to utter helplessness and powerlessness. Thenius thinks that it refers to a definite defeat, and Hitzig, on Amos 4:10, suggests that the reference there may be to the same decisive defeat here alluded to.—W. G. S.]—On 2 Kings 13:10 see notes on 2 Kings 13:1. Jehoash’s war with Amaziah, mentioned in 2 Kings 13:12, is narrated at length in 2 Kings 14:8 sq. The concluding formula, 2 Kings 13:12-13, belongs properly after 2 Kings 13:25. It is given in this place only because it followed, in one of the authorities used by the author, directly upon 2 Kings 13:10-11, and he did not consider it necessary to dissever it from this connection. 2 Kings 13:14. Now Elisha was fallen sick, &c. The narrative in 2 Kings 13:14-21 is, without doubt, taken from a different original document from that to which the verses belong which immediately precede and follow. It is not inserted here merely because it belongs to the time of king Jehoash. The end of the great prophet of Israel, who had wrought so influentially upon its history, and whose acts had been so circumstantially narrated, could not be passed over in silence, especially since the accompanying incidents stood in such close connection with what had gone before, and with what was to follow. Jehoahaz had, according to 2 Kings 13:3-7, left the kingdom very much weakened. When Jehoash heard of Elisha’s illness, he went to him, and, weeping, called to him, as Elisha had once called to Elijah as he passed away (see Pt. II., p. 15, and cf. p. 69): O my father, my father! the Chariot of Israel and the Horsemen thereof! as much as to say: If now thou also, who hast so often shown thyself the strength and the protector of Israel, and hast helped by counsel and by act, if now thou also, in this time of distress, art about to depart, whence shall come help, and counsel, and deliverance from the hand of the powerful enemy? This humble and chastened spirit on his part leads the prophet to give him the declaration that the prayer of his father (2 Kings 13:4) had been heard, and that the deliverance should commence in his time. The fulfilment of this promise is then narrated in the following verses, 22–25. 2 Kings 13:15. And Elisha said unto him, &c. Elisha does not simply make known this promise to the king by words, but also, as a prophet, in that form which belongs to the essential character of the prophetical office, and is peculiar to prophetical announcements, that is, by means of a symbolic action (see note on chap. 11, 30 sq.). The declaration thereby receives the impress of a solemn and purely prophetical announcement. Here, as in all similar cases, the symbolic action precedes the words which explain it; thereby it represents the future event as a fact, as something which will come without fail. Inasmuch as it was the king himself who performed this symbolic action, and not the prophet, it became all the more a pledge to him of the fulfilment of the prophet’s words. The whole transaction consists of two acts; 2 Kings 13:15-17 give the first one; 2 Kings 13:18-19 the second, which is a continuation of the first. Each is followed by words of. the prophet, interpreting it. 2 Kings 13:15. Take bow and arrows. The prophet made use of these for his symbolic action, because the matter in hand was a warlike contest with enemies, and the king, or at least his attendants, were provided with these arms. The command: “Take bow and arrows,” signifies: Arm thyself for war against the Syrians I There is not the least reference to a method of soothsaying by means of arrows (Belomancy, cf. Ezekiel 21:21), which was practised by many ancient heathen nations. 2 Kings 13:16. Put thine hand upon the bow; literally: Let thine hand ride upon the bow. In drawing the bow, it is held in a horizontal position in such a way that the left hand rests upon it. The prophet placed his hands upon those of the king “in token that the impulse which was to be given came, through the prophet’s hands, from the Lord” (Keil). The king’s act thereby becomes to a certain extent the act of the prophet, and so an act which is performed in the name and by the authority of Jehovah. Only in so far can the laying on of hands here be regarded as at once a consecration and a blessing, for that is not its primary significance here, as it is in other places where the hand is laid upon the head. 2 Kings 13:17. Open the window, that is, order the grating, which is in front of the window-opening, to be removed. The king could not open it himself, for he had both hands upon the bow. Eastward, i. e., toward the country east of the Jordan, which the Syrians had taken (2 Kings 10:33), and from whence they continually threatened the country this side the Jordan. The older expositors refer, by way of explanation of the words: And he shot, to the custom in ancient times of declaring war by shooting an arrow into the enemy’s territory (Virgil, Ζneid, ix. 57), but that was not the significance of the arrow shot by the king in this case. The words which explain the symbolic act follow the discharge of the arrow: An arrow of deliverance for Jehovah, μַ ?ιδεָֹ ?δ, i. e., auctore Jehova. [The expression seems intended to interpret the arrow, thus discharged, on two sides, towards Jehovah, and towards the Syrians. It was an arrow of deliverance for, or in its relation to Jehovah, inasmuch as it represented the deliverance which He was determined to give; it was an arrow of deliverance against or upon the Syrians, as it signified the coming overthrow of their oppression.—W. G. S.] Let this arrow be a pledge to thee that Jehovah will help thee, and that thou wilt overcome the Syrians—at Aphek. Locus erat boni ominis (Menochius), for Jehovah had already once given Israel a great victory there (1 Kings 20:26-29). The words ςַ ?γΞλַּ ?μֵּ ?δ refer, in this verse, only to the Syrian army at Aphek; in 2 Kings 13:19, on the contrary, they refer to the entire Syrian military power. 2 Kings 13:18. Take the arrows. The second part of the symbolical action which here begins not only continues the preceding, but consists of an enhancement of it. The article in δַ ?ηִ ?φִּ ?ιν, which is wanting in 2 Kings 13:15, designates particular arrows, namely all, besides the one which had already been shot away, which remained in the quiver. δַ ?κְ ΰַ ?ψְ ?φָ ?δ does not mean: Smite the earth (Luther); nor: Smite upon the earth (De Wette); still less: Strike with the bundle of arrows in the direction of the earth [i.e., as if smiting an enemy to earth with it] (Thenius). The last interpretation has no support in the text; and arrows are not used for smiting enemies to the earth, or for striking upon the ground. πָ ?λָ ?δ stands in contrast with ιָ ?ψָ ?δ (2 Kings 13:17); it does not mean jacere (sagittas), to shoot arrows, but, ferire, to hit (1 Kings 22:34; 2 Kings 9:24; 1 Samuel 17:49). The arrow in 2 Kings 13:17 was only to be shot away through the window towards the east; the arrows in 2 Kings 13:18 were to hit down to the earth, i.e., in such a way that what was hit by them should be stretched upon the ground. As the king only shot to the earth thus three times and then stopped, did not, therefore, use up all the arrows which remained, the prophet was displeased (Sept. ἐλυπήθη) and said (2 Kings 13:19): Thou shouldest have smitten, &c. He meant: Thou hadst more than three arrows, and mightest have continued to hit; the fact, however, that thou hast ceased so soon, shows that thou lackest the zeal which is tireless, and which perseveres, trusting in the Lord; thou shalt indeed defeat the Syrians, but the complete destruction of their power will not come about through thee. The reason why the king shot three times and then stopped was that, according to the prevalent notion, that what was done thrice was done perfectly (Numbers 22:28; Numbers 22:32-33; Numbers 24:10; Exodus 23:17), he supposed that this sufficed. It was not because he was afraid that, if he shot any more, the prophecies of Elisha would not come to pass (Starke), or because he did not dare to shoot more, “lest too extravagant demands might deprive him of all” (Von Gerlach). In the first part of the transaction (2 Kings 13:16-17), it is promised him that Jehovah will give him victory over the Syrians; in the second (2 Kings 13:18-19), he is exhorted to go on, trusting in Jehovah’s assistance, without hesitation; and putting forth all his energies, and so to make war upon the Syrians until he utterly destroys them. 2 Kings 13:20. And Elisha died, &c., εַ ?ιָּ ?ξָ ?η evidently refers back to ιָ ?ξεּ ?η in 2 Kings 13:14. Vulg.: Mortuus est ergo Elisaeus et sepelierunt eum. This sentence closes the narrative which began with 2 Kings 13:14. It ought not, therefore, to be treated as a subordinate clause to what follows, as Luther understood it: “When Elisha was dead and they had buried him, the Moabites made an incursion.” Elisha must have reached a great age, for Jehoash did not come to the throne till 840–39, and Ahab, in whose reign Elisha was already a grown man (1 Kings 19:19), reigned from 919–897 (see above, Pt. II., p. 45). According to Jerome’s statement (Epitaph. Paulae), Elisha’s grave was in the neighborhood of Samaria, where he had a residence (2 Kings 5:9; 2 Kings 6:32). Krummacher locates it, without any definite reason, in the neighborhood of Jericho, and certainly raiding bands of the Moabites might much more naturally appear in the neighborhood of Jericho than near Samaria. αָּ ?ΰωָׁ ?πָ ?δ means literally: a year came. According to the Targum and the Rabbis this means: at the beginning of the year. They came at this season because then the country furnished pasture. It can hardly mean that they came every year (Ewald). Still less correct is the rendering of the Vulg. which Luther follows: in ipso anno, in the same year.—εַ ?ιַ ?ωְׁ ?μִ ?ιλεּ, 2 Kings 13:21, is not to be understood of a rude and violent “throwing in,” but it is meant to describe the haste with which they opened the grave and deposited the corpse in it. It is not necessary to change εַ ?ιֵּ ?μֶ ?κְ, as Hitzig and Thenius do, into εַ ?ιֵּ ?μְ ?λεּ, i. e., they went away, for δμκְ “is used not only of the motion of lifeless objects, but also of the gradual progress of an action” (Keil). [It has great dramatic force, describing the gradual approach of the corpse to that contact which involved such momentous consequences.—W. G. S.] The Hebrews brought their dead to the grave, not in closed coffins, but on an open bier (Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 16), “so that the corpse which was being brought to the sepulchre, on being hastily deposited there, might easily come in contact with the remains of Elisha” (Keil). 2 Kings 13:22. But Hazael, king of Syria, &c. The narrative here returns to 2 Kings 13:3-7. Seb. Schmidt: reassumitur hoc de Chasaele ad exponendum complementum prophetiae Elisae. In sense, μָ ?ηַ ?υ is to be taken as a pluperfect. 2 Kings 13:23 contains a remark of the author: Israel had been brought by Hazael to the brink of ruin, but, for the sake of His covenant, Jehovah took pity upon His people once more: He did not as yet permit it to be destroyed, as He did later (2 Kings 17:6). Hazael died (2 Kings 13:24), and Jehoash defeated his son and successor three times, as the prophet had foretold. The cities of Israel (2 Kings 13:25) which Jehoash took away from Benhadad must have been “those which lay upon this side the Jordan, for Hazael had conquered the territory beyond Jordan during the reign of Jehu (2 Kings 10:32 sq.), and it is expressly stated that the cities which he now recovered were those which had been taken from his father Jehoahaz” (Thenius). Jeroboam II. was the first who restored the ancient boundaries (2 Kings 14:25). AND ETHICAL1. In regard to the reign of King Jehoahaz, we have but scanty records; the Chronicle does not mention him at all. The kingdom had declined very much during the last years of Jehu (2 Kings 10:31-33), but, under this king, it sank still lower in every respect. The worship of the calves, which his father had retained, still continued; also the licentious worship of Astarte was once more practised. The entire revolution mentioned in chaps. 9 and 10, the overthrow of the House of Ahab, the foundation of a new dynasty, the abolition of idolatry, thus proved fruitless and vain. The divine judgments and chastisements which had begun under Jehu therefore increased, so that the kingdom came nigh to ruin. Jehoahaz, therefore, turned and prayed to God in anxiety and despair, and He once more had pity on His people. Schlier justly says of Jehoahaz: “His prayer was the best thing that he bequeathed to his successor.” The state of things during his reign is a proof that worship of images always leads to worship of false gods, and that there is only one step from the one to the other (see 1 Kings 12:25-33, Hist. § 2). It shows how, universally, the weeds of religious error, when they have taken root amongst a people, although they may be pulled up again and again, nevertheless strike root again and spread, and endure more storm and hard usage than good and useful plants. Is it not true that even Christian nations cling more stubbornly to the errors which have fastened upon Christian doctrine, than to Christian truth itself? On the other hand, God, who guides the destinies of Israel, appears here as one whose wrath is indeed kindled at the sin and apostasy of His people, but who does not remain angry forever. He never ceases to be pitiful and gracious, kind and faithful (Exodus 34:6; Psalms 103:8-9). When His people, call upon Him, He hears the cry, and in due time sends a deliverer. 2. There is no mention made of the prophet Elisha from the anointing of Jehu in 884 to the reign of Jehoash (839), that is, for a period of at least forty-five years, whereas we should have expected that his influence would be especially wide and great under a dynasty which he put upon the throne. The fact that Jehoash called him “Father” and the “Chariot of Israel and the Horsemen thereof” shows that he enjoyed high honor and esteem, and it would be very astonishing, if Elisha had not even given a sign of his existence for forty-five years. We are therefore compelled to infer either that the original documents used by our author were silent in regard to his activity, or that some of the incidents mentioned in chap. 4 sq. belong to this period (see Pt. II., p. 45). It cannot be proved, as Ewald asserts, that “all the incidents, in which he appears as standing in high estimation with the king of the northern kingdom, belong to the times of the house of Jehu,” that is to say, especially chaps. 5 and 6 It is far more probable that it was he who warned and threatened king Jehu (2 Kings 10:30), and also induced king Jehoahaz to humble himself and turn to God in prayer (2 Kings 13:4). He shows himself once more on his death-bed in his full and distinctive prophetical character. He appears here in his last hours in the character which was peculiar to him as compared with Elijah, i. e., as the one who built up, rescued from distress, and preserved (see Pt. II., p. 24). He departs from the world with a great promise of deliverance to his people, with the announcement of coming release from the oppression of the arch-enemy. “Salvation and Victory from Jehovah!” is his last prophetic oracle. While the young and vigorous king, despairing of deliverance, stands crushed and tearful before him, the prophet, oppressed by disease, and age, and approaching death, raises himself up from his death-bed, spiritually full of life and strength, and gives orders to the king to do this and that, in the tone of one who has set up and deposed kings, and whose calling it has been to break in pieces and to destroy, to build and to plant (Jeremiah 1:10). He commands the king to execute the significant operation, not because he himself was too weak to talk much (Thenius), but because the king was to be the actor, was to be filled with courageous faith, and was to be assured of the victory he should win. It must have made a deep and solemn impression upon him and upon all who stood about, that he himself executed this symbolic action with the hands of the prophet laid upon him. When the prophet’s wrath was kindled against the king for desisting from shooting, it was not a sinful ebullition, but a wrath which sprang from love, because the king did not secure still more of the promise for himself and his people. 3. The story of the restoration to life of a man who was laid in Elisha’s grave stands in close connection with what precedes, not only historically, but also as respects its significance, and its moral. This is sufficient to show that it cannot have, as Ephraim Syrus and some other church fathers suppose, the general moral, that “Elisha, even in the grave, surpassed Elijah in miraculous power,” nor, as Theodoret says: ὡςδιαπλασίαντοῦ διδασκάλουτὴνχάρινἐδέξατο [that he had a double portion of his master’s spirit]. This notion rests upon the erroneous interpretation of 2 Kings 2:9 (see notes thereon). Elisha is nowhere placed superior to Elijah. According to the opinion which is now generally received, and which was proposed by Seb. Smith, the object of this miracle of resuscitation was to “impress the seal of the Divine confirmation upon the prediction of the dying prophet in regard to Jehoash’s victory over the Syrians” (Keil), or, “to give a pledge of the fulfilment of the promise which had been given” (Thenius). But the resuscitation of a dead man has no essential connection with the contents of this prediction, and the miracle would then be a mere display of supernatural power, having no special significance, and presenting no reason why this rather than any other form of supernatural work should have been chosen. The incident is connected, not with the victory over the Syrians, but with the death and burial of the prophet, which are mentioned just before. Its significance is this: Elisha died and was buried as all men are, but even in the grave testimony was borne to his character as a prophet and servant of God. The spirit (ψεּ ?ηַ) of Jehovah, which made him, as well as his master, prophets (2 Kings 2:9; 2 Kings 2:15), and which is the principle of all prophetical life and work, made itself manifest in him even in the grave. It manifested itself, moreover, in a manner which corresponds exactly to the form of activity of this prophet, who was a preserver, savior, and life-giver (see Pt. II., p. 24). Salvation and life proceed from him, by the spirit of God, which makes alive, and is the fountain of life (Ezekiel 37:1-14; Hosea 6:2; Deuteronomy 32:39), even after he is in the grave. This interpretation is confirmed by the passage Sir 48:1-15. The praises of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha are there pronounced, and especial reference is made to the end of each. The translation of Elijah is mentioned in 2 Kings 13:9, and then, in 2 Kings 13:13, with which the panegyric of Elisha begins, the author refers back to it again: “Elijah was enveloped in a storm-cloud, and Elisha was filled with his spirit. During his life he feared before no ruler, and no one ever imposed restraint upon him. He yielded to no compulsion, καὶ ἐνκοιμήσειἐπροφήτευσετὸ σῶμααὐτοῦ. During his life he performed wonders, καὶ ἐντελευτῇ θαυμάσιατὰ ἔργααὐτοῦ.” Whereas, in 2 Kings 13:1—8, Elijah’s separate deeds are particularly described, Elisha’s activity is only delineated in general outline; on the contrary his end, like that of Elijah, is noticed especially. This shows that, in the time of Sirach, this incident was considered important and significant. Taken in connection with the context the sense is: as the greatest of all prophets, Elijah, the second Moses, was marvelously glorified at the close of his career; so was his successor, Elisha, also. Though his end was not like that of his master, yet it was not without divine testimony to his prophetical calling, for the spirit of Jehovah made itself manifest in him even in the grave. It was not the dead bones which brought the dead to life, but the living God. The resuscitation of the dead man was only “brought about by contact with the bones of the dead prophet, because God desired thereby to show to His people that the divine energy, which had been active in Elisha, had not, by his death, disappeared from Israel” (Keil Commentar, Ed. of 1845). This shows that it is as great an error to charge the writer with ascribing to the bones of Elisha a magical, miraculous power, as to refer to this narrative as a proof of the miraculous efficacy of relics. “This instance,” says Starke, “proves nothing in behalf of the relics of saints and their misuse in the Romish Church, for it was not the bones of Elisha, but the power of God, which made this dead man live. The Church did not then, and has never since, dug up the bones of Elisha, much less encased them in gold and silver, and given them to the people to kiss and reverence, as is done under the papacy, in order to gain favor with God, for which there is neither precept nor example in the Scriptures.” Neither is it necessary to have recourse to the typical and allegorical method of interpretation. J. Lange says: “The chief object (of this miracle) was to affirm the doctrine of the future, universal resurrection of the dead. Elisha was, therefore, in this point, a type of Christ.” In like manner, Krummacher says, basing his view on Sir 48:13, that the corpse of Elisha prophesied of the “flowing, new-creating, life-giving, miraculous power, which was to be poured out in the world through the death of his great anti-type, Jesus Christ.” This latter notion is inapt, because life and resurrection proceed, not from the crucified and dead, but from the risen, Christ. Cassel (Der Prophet Elisa, s. 162 sq.) even finds the prophetical spirit represented in the (dead) Elisha, and the people of Israel in the dead man restored to life. He says: “When the spirit of the prophets breathed over Israel like an evening wind, then the nation rose again, became living, and made all live whom its word touched. All the dead who fall upon prophecy rise again to life. Elisha is the prophetic law, whosoever in Israel believes on it experiences the resurrection of the dead in Jesus Christ. The miracle at Elisha’s grave is a type—but since all, Jews and heathen, alike become living at the grave of Christ through repentance and faith, no dead man’s bone any longer restores to life.” It is not necessary to show that such interpretations have no foundation in the text. [Scarcely a better means of exposing their frivolity could be found than to translate them. They are inflated, rhetorical inventions. When they are translated literally, they appear to be scarcely more than ridiculous and incoherent jargon. The principal utility of quoting them is to keep before us a warning of the pitfalls which environ the science of interpretation.—W. G. S.] Finally, the naturalistic interpretation of this incident, according to which “an apparently dead man, when he was thrown into the grave of Elisha, was restored to life by the violent shock of the fall” (Exeget. Handbuch on the passage; Baur, Hebr. Mythologie, ii. s. 197; Jahn, Einleitung in’s A. T. ii. 1. s. 261) may be regarded as antiquated and abandoned. Thenius says: “The incident may have occurred very naturally,” but does not tell how. Knobel’s remark: There is something analogous in the legend that the ground, where Amphiaraus lay buried, prophesied (Cicero, De Divin. i. 40),” rests upon an entire misconception of the aim and significance of the miracle. [This might be regarded as a test case among the Old Testament miracles. It is very doubtful if many readers will find themselves satisfied with the above discussion of it. The notion that Elisha was a “constructive” prophet, in contrast with Elijah, who was “destructive,” is a mere whim. The fondness for historical parallels and contrasts seduces many into finding coincidences, correspondences, and contrasts where none exist out of the imagination of the writer. Elijah and Elisha differed somewhat in character, it is true, but they must be taken together as two men who worked with the same general method, under very similar circumstances, and towards the same ends. There is no ground for any such contrast as is here affirmed. Yet this contrast is made to be, in Bδhr’s explanation of the miracle, after all verbiage is stripped from it, the motive of this wonderful event. God bore testimony to Elisha’s calling even after his death, and this testimony took the form of the restoration of a dead man to life by physical contact with the bones of the dead prophet, because Elisha had been a constructing, life-giving prophet. Of course, an affirmed miracle would not be disproved, if we did not see the necessity for it, but no miracle recorded in Scripture would seem more superfluous than one which was intended to ratify the calling of Elisha as a prophet of Jehovah, after his death. As for the authority of Sirach, it is not worth while to go into it. His panegyric is poetical and rhetorical in form, and when he says, for instance, that “the body (of Elisha) prophesied in the tomb,” although there is a reference to this passage, and although it is a perfectly justifiable thing for him to refer to it in this poetical strain in the course of such a composition as that he was making, yet it is difficult to see how these words could be reduced to any statement which would be available for critical and exegetical purposes. The attempts to lend significance to this incident, on one side and on the other, are all failures. The simple statement of the text is that an incursion of Moabites interrupted a funeral. The corpse was hastily thrown into the sepulchre of Elisha, and when it touched the bones of the prophet, the man returned to life. The remarkable dramatic minuteness of the description in 2 Kings 13:21 : “when the dead man came and touched the bones of the prophet, he revived,” shows that the resuscitation was dependent on, and, we may say, caused by the physical contact, according to the conviction of the writer of the narrative. Different persons will receive this story in different ways, according to their theological and philosophical prepossessions. Some will see in it a popular legend or myth which insisted on glorifying the prophet by ascribing miraculous efficacy to his bones after his death, a mere legend which grew up in the course of time, but had no historical foundation. Others will simply take the story as it is given as an indisputable fact, and will go no farther than the record goes. It is not stated that the bones of the prophet were ever tested again to see if they would repeat the miracle, or that any other persons than this one were ever restored, and it is not stated why the miracle was performed at all. Those who adopt this second course must decline to speculate on these questions. They must assume that, for some reasons unknown, God, on a single occasion, attached to the bones of the prophet this efficacy. They must decline to deduce general inferences from this incident. Others again will go still farther, and infer that the sanctity of the man was due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that this became physically inherent in the remains of his body, that his bones, therefore, had miraculous efficacy, and that the bones of other individuals of equal sanctity will have equal efficacy. It is a development and extension of the second view, and it elevates the isolated instance into a law. In this way the story is made to lend support to the use of relics. It is remarked above, in reference to this, that it was not the prophet’s bone, but the power of God, which wrought the miracle. No one would assert anything else of the use of any relic. It is clearly stated that the resuscitation depended upon the physical contact with the physical object, and the latter had mysterious and supernatural efficacy inherent in it, which it could only have acquired as part of the body of a man who had been marked by extraordinary spiritual superiority. That, however, is the principle which lies at the root of the use and veneration of relics.—W. G. S.] 4. King Jehoash did not indeed renounce the worship of Jeroboam’s calves, but he was one of the best among the kings of the northern kingdom. This much is clear from the story of his interview with Elisha, if from nothing more. We do not hear that any other one of the four kings, under whom the prophet lived, stood in similar relations to him. Even though the tears which he shed at the prophet’s death-bed were not tears of penitence, and of a “lively regret for his past behavior towards the prophet” (Krummacher), yet they certainly show how deeply he was touched by the distress of Israel, and how helpless he felt at the departure of the prophet. By his exclamation: “My Father!” &c., he proclaimed to all who stood by that the prophet was more to him than all the military force which still remained. He then goes on to do what the prophet commands him, as a servant obeys his master. He desisted after shooting three times, not, as Krummacher thinks, from fear of condescending below his royal dignity, but from shame and fear of demanding too much [or rather, because what was done three times was thought to be completely done. See Exeg. note on 2 Kings 13:19] He took courage, and soon showed himself a bold and victorious soldier, both in his war with Syria, and in that with Amaziah (see chap. 14). AND 2 Kings 13:1-13. See Histor. and Eth. The history of the kingdom of Israel under Jehoahaz shows us (a) God’s severity, and (b) God’s goodness. Romans 11:22; cf. Sir 5:6 sq.; 2 Kings 16:12.—Starke: Men who have a personal interest in deeply rooted customs or traditions, are very loath to see them overthrown and abandoned, although they often thereby draw down God’s judgments by their own hands. 2 Kings 13:3-4. How hard it often is to bring a man, who has turned away from the living God and from His word, to seek the Lord’s face. Jehoahaz had to be pushed to the last extremity by the enemy, and to be most deeply humiliated, before he called upon the Lord and saw where help is to be found in all distress (Isaiah 26:16). 2 Kings 13:4-5. Berleb. Bibel: The Lord heard him and thereby showed distinctly how easily He may be moved to show mercy, if we will only bring ourselves to ask Him in humility and sincere penitence.—Starke: Faithful Christian! If God heard Jehoahaz, how much more will He hear thee, if thou callest upon Him.—The Lord gave Israel a deliverer, but Jehoahaz did not live to see him. God hears the cries of those who earnestly call upon Him, and helps them, but the time and place and manner of His aid are retained in His own discretion. Do not despair if thy prayer does not seem to be heard, and the Lord delays His assistance. He knows the fitting seasons and knows what is useful for us. 2 Kings 13:5-6. The Lord gave Israel a temporal saviour in its hour of physical need; to us He has given a spiritual Saviour, who can and will save us out of the hands of the greatest of all enemies: sin, death, Satan, and Hell (Luke 1:69-71). What can we expect, if it must be said of us also: Yet they did not renounce their sins.—Richter: Many a one prays, like Jehoahaz, in his time of distress, and when the trouble is past, the good impulses quickly disappear again. 2 Kings 13:7. Wόrt. Summ.: No nation is so great and mighty that God cannot take away its might and make it so small and slight that it is only like dust which the wind scatters (Psalms 18:42). Therefore, ye godless! plume yourselves not so much upon your strength (Psalms 75:5). Look at the chaff, how quickly it is scattered; so shall it be with your strength. 2 Kings 13:14-21. Elisha’s End. (a) His death-bed, 2 Kings 13:14-19. (b) His grave, 2 Kings 13:20-21. 2 Kings 13:14-17. Krummacher: The sick-bed. (a) Elisha in illness; (b) bewailed by the king; (c) but a prophet until his latest breath. 2 Kings 13:14-19. King Jehoash at the death-bed of Elisha. (a) He weeps and laments; (b) He is consoled and strengthened.—How did Elisha pass away from earth? Sick and weakened by age—(his lot was the ordinary one of mortals; he also had to pass away into darkness and death, however much he had wrought and fought and labored, Psalms 90:10; Psalms 90:12. God has ordained sickness before death, that we may set our house in order, may seek refuge in the mercy of God, and may ponder what is our sole consolation, in life and in death)—yet, as a man of God. (In spite of weakness and physical decay, he is strong and firm; he asks no help from men, but he, the dying one, consoles and strengthens the living. His last word is a promise of victory. The words of Isaiah [Isaiah 40:29–31] are verified in him.) 2 Kings 13:14. It is rarely recognized how great and irreparable is the loss of a true man of God, a great benefactor, and a faithful servant, until he is gone.—King Jehoash was not ashamed to come to the dying prophet, and to confess with tears his own helplessness; but how many shun such holy men, and are glad if they never need have anything to do with them. 2 Kings 13:15 sq. From the example of Elisha, we see how one who can say: “The Lord is my strength and song, and is become my salvation” (Psalms 118:14). stands before the gates of eternity; proclaiming salvation, extending blessings, sure of victory. There is no greater thing than a man who, in the face of death, can cry: “O death! where is thy sting,” &c. (1 Corinthians 15:55; 1 Corinthians 15:57).—Krummacher: Here we see Elisha’s patriotism. If we would know what true love of one’s fatherland is, let us ask the prophet. In his case it received a divine consecration. It is truly touching to see with what tenderness the prophets enfold in their hearts their country and people, even when they see in them little but spiritual death, decay, and corruption, and experience from their fellow-countrymen little but bitterness, hate, and persecution. 2 Kings 13:18-19. Berleb. Bibel: Cease not to shoot arrows of love into the heart of God, so shall one arrow of deliverance after another come back to thee from the Lord, and be given to thee in the word of truth. So shalt thou smite thy spiritual foes and tread them under foot even more completely than Jehoash did the Syrians.—Roos: The cowardly unbelief of men causes that God cannot reveal His glory in some places as he gladly would (Mark 6:5), and that their way is not made so easy for them as God would be willing to make it (Proverbs 4:12). The measure of the victory depends upon the measure of the faith. The Lord said to the centurion of Capernaum: “As thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee” (Matthew 8:13). He who is called to execute a work for God may not stop and desist according to his own good judgment, but must go on in it tirelessly and faithfully, till the Lord commands him to cease.—Calw. Bibel: Many enemies are to be conquered, many tests to be endured. Faith must hold firm until the end. When one battle is won, the conflict is not over. How much is it to be regretted when one only half believes, half obeys, or when one, after a good beginning, desists. 2 Kings 13:20-21. The Miracle at the Grave of Elisha; its Object and its Significance, (a) for the prophet himself; (b) for us all (see Hist. § 3). Von Gerlach: The Lord showed thereby that He was not a God of the dead, but of the living; that the dead in Him live for Him (Matthew 22:32); that the spirit of life which proceeds from Him spreads life and blessing everywhere where it comes, and that it is superior to death and decay.—The dead cannot make the dead to live; the spirit of the Lord alone penetrates even into the place of corruption, and changes it into a place of life (Ezekiel 37:1 sq.). We, therefore, rest our confidence and hope, not upon dead men’s bones, but upon the God who makes all things to live, and who raised up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep. If we are buried with Him, we have this consolation: the God who raised Him will also raise us to life through His might (1 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:4).—Berleb. Bibel: The precept and example of men of God can have power, even after their death, to the resuscitation of those who are spiritually dead, if the latter will only study and follow them (Hebrews 13:7). This is the way in which the bones of the dead are truly efficacious. If thou art dead in sin, cast thyself into the tomb of the Saviour in humility and self-renunciation, so shalt thou revive and rise to life again as He did, for he who truly grasps the virtue of the death of Christ (comes into contact with that Dead One) is thus revived to the true life of his soul. 2 Kings 13:23 sq. Calw. Bibel: When God turns Himself from us, then we are given over to wretchedness; when He turns back to us again, then we find salvation. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been dead for a thousand years, and yet their blessing was efficacious.—Wόrt. Summ.: God does not take pleasure in our ruin, but remembers, even in the midst of His anger, His promised grace and the covenant which He has made with us (Luke 1:72 sq.).—Cramer: Tyrants are rods by means of which God chastises His people; but finally the tyrants themselves are chastised by God and cast into the fire. 2 Kings 13:25. Starke: It was unjustly obtained and quickly lost. Unrighteous wealth rarely comes to the third generation (Jes. 33:1).—Richter: Israel is to-day, as it was then (2 Kings 13:23), a covenant people of God, and is not rejected entirely and forever (Romans 11). Footnotes: 2 Kings 13:4.—[ηִ ?μָּ ?δΰֶ ?ϊΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι. See 1 Kings 13:6. [λִּ ?ϊְ ?ξεֹ ?μωִׁ ?μωׁ ?εֹ ?ν, “as yesterday and day before,” i.e., as before. Cf. Genesis 31:2; Genesis 31:5; Exodus 5:7; Exodus 5:14; 1 Samuel 21:6. 2 Kings 13:6.—[The ΰ is omitted in the chetib on account of the ΰ which immediately follows. Cf. 2 Samuel 5:2; 1 Kings 21:21. Bφttcher, §§ 414, and 1080, 1. 2 Kings 13:7.—[λֶּ ?ςָ ?τָ ?ψμָ ?γֻ ?ωׁ, literally “like dust to tread upon.”] 2 Kings 13:9.—[εַ ?ιִּ ?χְ ?αְּ ?ψֻ ?δεּ,—the plural, as in English, for the passive, equivalent to the active singular with indefinite subject. (Germ. man, Fr. on). Cf. 2 Kings 7:13; 1 Kings 1:1; 1 Kings 9:9; 1 Kings 18:10. 2 Kings 13:14.—[The imperfect tense in ιָ ?ξεּ ?ϊ has its proper force of the future, and is equivalent to the perfect of the Latin periphrastic conj. in rus. Ewald, § 136, d.] 2 Kings 13:17.—[ςַ ?γΞλַּ ?μֵּ ?δ, lit. “until consuming,” gerund form, = until thou consume, finish destroying, them. 2 Kings 13:19.—[μְ ?δַ ?λּ ?εֹ ?ϊ; the infinitive is used like the Latin participle in dus: “It was to be smitten,” i.e., thou shouldest have smitten. Ewald, § 237, c. In the conclusion we have a perfect in the sense of the pluperfect conjunctive. Cf. Genesis 18:12; 1 Samuel 13:18. Bφttcher, § 947, d.—W. G. S.] See the Appendix on the Chronology. For the purpose of the calculation here made, it is immaterial whether this date is correct or not, but it is certainly wrong to call it “an established chronological starting-point.”—W. G. S. B.—The Reign of Amaziah in Judah, and that of Jeroboam II. in Israel2 Kings 14:1-29. (2 Chronicles 25)1In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned [omit reigned] Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah [became king]. 2He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and [he] reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. 3And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like David his father: he did according to [in] all things as Joash his father did [had done]. 4Howbeit the high places were not taken away: as yet [omit as yet] the people did sacrifice [were yet sacrificing] and burnt [burning] incense on the high places. 5And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom, was confirmed in his hand, that he slew his servants which had slain the king his father. 6But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein [which] the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers: but every man shall be put to death [die] for his own sin. 7He slew of Edom in the valley of salt ten thousand, [:] and [omit and—He also] took Selah by war, and called the name of it Joktheel unto this day. 8Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face. 9And Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying, The thistle [brier] that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle [brier]. 10Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and thine heart hath lifted thee up: glory of this [exult!], and tarry at home: for why shouldest [wilt] thou meddle to thy hurt [provoke a calamity], that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee? 11But Amaziah would not hear. Therefore Jehoash king of Israel went up; and he and Amaziah king of Judah looked one another in the face at Beth-shemesh, which belongeth [belongeth] to Judah. 12And Judah was put to the worse before Israel: and they fled every man to their [his] tents [tent]. 13And Jehoash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh, and came to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate, four hundred cubits. 14And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and hostages, and returned to Samaria. 15Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 16And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his stead. 17And Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years. 18And the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 19Now they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem: and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there. 20And they brought him on horses: and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David. 21And all the people of Judah took Azariah, which [who] was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah. 22He built Elath, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers. 23In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah, Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years. 24And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 25He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of [near] Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gath-hepher. 26For the Lord saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter: for there was not any shut up, nor any left [neither any of age, nor any under age], nor any helper for Israel. 27And the Lord said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash. 28Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 29And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, even with the kings of Israel; and Zachariah his son reigned in his stead. AND 2 Kings 14:1. In the second year of Joash … Amaziah … became king. On the chronological datum see 2 Kings 13:1. 2 Kings 14:3. Instead of the words: not like David, his father, the parallel account in Chronicles (2 Kings 25:2) reads: “Not with all his heart.” The additional statement: He did in all things as Joash his father had done, shows that Amaziah, in the first part of his reign, was devoted to the worship of Jehovah as Joash was (2 Kings 12:3), but that afterwards, especially after his victory over Edom, he introduced, or at least tolerated, the worship of the false gods of Edom, as his father had permitted the worship of Asherah (2 Chronicles 24:2; 2 Chronicles 24:18). [It is putting too great a strain on these words to make them cover any such accurate parallelism between the lives of the two kings, especially when this parallelism is constructed by borrowing from the Chronicles. It is simply meant that his general policy, and the extent to which he conformed to the demands of the Jehovah-religion, were modelled upon his father’s conduct.—W. G. S.] The passage 2 Chronicles 25:14 does not, therefore, contradict this verse, as Thenius and Bertheau assert; on the contrary, 2 Kings 14:2 of the Chronicle contains the same assertion as 2 Kings 14:3 here. [An attentive comparison of the records of Kings and Chronicles at this point reveals some most interesting characteristics of each, and nothing could be more mischievous than a false effort to “harmonize” and “reconcile,” which should obliterate these distinguishing characteristics. A comparison of 2 Kings 12:2 with 2 Chronicles 24:2 shows a difference of judgment as to Joash’s career. (See translator’s note on 2 Kings 12:2.) In perfect consistency, each with its own general judgment, Kings says nothing of any idolatry of Joash, while Chronicles records such an error (2 Chronicles 24:18). Again, Kings approves in general of Amaziah’s career, although it was not up to the standard of David (2 Kings 14:3; cf. also 2 Kings 15:3). 2 Kings 14:4 tells wherein he failed according to this author. 2 Chronicles 25:2 might be considered equivalent to this, but 2 Kings 14:14 states the fault which the chronicler had to find with him, while Kings is silent in regard to any such sin. The two accounts are each consistent with itself, but they differ in regard to their general estimate of the careers of these two kings. Thenius and Bertheau think that the chronicler inferred from the misfortunes of these kings that they must have been unfaithful to Jehovah, but it is unnecessary to adopt so violent an explanation of the divergence. The chronicler either had more information, or a stricter standard.—W. G. S.] On 2 Kings 14:4 see note on 1 Kings 3:2. On 2 Kings 14:5 cf. 2 Kings 12:21 sq. As it was the custom in the Orient to put to death not only conspirators themselves, but also their children (Curtius VI. 11, 20; Rosenmόller, Altes und Neues Morgenland, II. s. 59), 2 Kings 14:6 expressly emphasizes the fact that Amaziah, in obedience to Deuteronomy 24:16, did not do this, and thereby proved himself to be a faithful king according to the Israelitish standards. The words: As it is written, &c., are not, as Thenius asserts, an explanatory addition by the “redactor;” they do not merely give his opinion; they rather state the true historical reason why Amaziah acted as he did. It is Clear, therefore, from this passage, that the author of these books assumes the existence of the book of Deuteronomy at that time, and did not at all suppose that it was first composed under Manasseh, 150 years later, as modern criticism (Riehm) maintains. We do not know whether Amaziah acted according to this precept on his own motive, or not. Perhaps he was exhorted to it by a prophet or a priest. 2 Kings 14:7. He slew of Edom. The Edomites revolted from Judah, according to 2 Kings 8:20, during the reign of Joram. Amaziah undertook to resubjugate them, and prepared great military resources to this end, as is narrated in 2 Chronicles 25:5 sq. The valley of salt (2 Samuel 8:13; 1 Chronicles 18:12) is a plain about two miles broad, south of the Dead Sea, which does not show a sign of vegetation. It is now called El-Ghor (Robinson, Palestine, II. 488 and 450). The chronicler does not mention the capture of Sela, but states that, besides the 10,000 who fell, 10,000 others were taken prisoners and thrown from a rock. Sela lay south of the valley of salt, in a valley which was shut in by rocks, but which was well watered and fruitful; it is the well-known Petra, and it was as important in a military as in a mercantile point of view. Cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 446 sq. The new name given to this town by the victor is significant. ιָ ?χְ ?ϊְ ?ΰֵ ?μ means a Deo subactum, in servitutem redactum (Gesenius, s. v.). We see from the phrase: unto this day, that the original document, from which our author took the history of Amaziah’s reign, belonged to the time of that king, or at least to a time not long after his death. As soon as the city came into other hands again, which it did under Ahaz (2 Kings 16:6), it certainly lost that humiliating name. It is possible indeed that it continued to be called by this name by the Jews, so that the argument is not conclusive, but, if we do not adopt this hypothesis, we must infer that the original document, in which stood the words “unto this day,” which the redactor has preserved, was written at least before the time of Ahaz. Of course this place has nothing to do with the Joktheel mentioned in Joshua 15:38. 2 Kings 14:8. Then Amaziah sent messengers. This took place after the brilliant victory over the Edomites. The detailed statement “son of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu,” &c, gives ground for the supposition that the original authority for 2 Kings 14:8 sq. is different from that of 2 Kings 14:1-7. [Let us look one another in the face. See Grammatical on the verse. This is a literal translation. Though the formula is variously explained, yet its significance is clear. It is a challenge to combat.—W. G. S.] Josephus says that Amaziah sent a letter to king Joash, in which he demanded of him to submit himself and people, as they had once been subject to David and Solomon, adding that, if he would not do this, a pitched battle should decide between them which had the superior authority (Antiq. ix. 9, 2). It is also possible that, as the rabbis say, the acts mentioned in 2 Chronicles 25:13 occasioned this demand.—The parable in 2 Kings 14:9 is not to be pressed too much in its details. The main point is the contrast of the largest, strongest, and most majestic tree, the cedar, and the contemptible, weak, and useless, although prickly, briar (not, as Thenius maintains, thistle. Cf. Proverbs 26:9; 1 Samuel 13:6; Job 31:40. [The comparison between a tree and a briar bush is more correct and appropriate than between a tree and a thistle]). These two stand side by side upon Lebanon. No wild beast can break down and crush the cedar, but it is very possible that this may occur with the briar. It is more a proverb than a parable, like the story in Judges 9:8-15. The words: Give thy daughter to my son to wife, are not to be interpreted as implying that Amaziah had demanded a daughter of Joash as a wife for one of his sons (Dereser); neither is the explanation that the kingdom of Israel is the daughter, and the kingdom of Judah the son (Thenius), a fit interpretation of the haughty parable of the king of Israel. Only he who is equal to the father may demand of the latter his daughter as a wife for his son, not one who stands as far below the father as the briar below the cedar. If such an one as this latter does make such a proposal, he is guilty of arrogance and presumption, and he must expect to be set in his proper place.—Thenius’ translation of 2 Kings 14:10 : “Show thy might at home,” is not correct, as we see from 2 Chronicles 25:19, where we read: “Thine heart lifteth thee up to boast (μְ ?δַ ?λְ ?αִּ ?ιγ); abide now at home.” λαγ, in the hifil, means to win honor or fame (Gesen.). The Vulg. is right according to the sense: contentus esto gloria et sede tua in domo tua.—Calamity is here spoken of as a hostile power, against which one fights in vain [or rather, in stricter accordance with the literal meaning of ϊִּ ?ϊְ ?βָּ ?ψֶ ?δαְּ, upon which one makes a rash and causeless attack, and so provokes it, brings it down upon one’s self.] 2 Kings 14:11. But Amaziah would not hear. Beth-Shemesh (cf. note on 1 Kings 4:9), where the two armies met, was in Judah, on the southern border of Dan, and therefore much nearer to Jerusalem than to Samaria. It follows that Joash did not wait for the attack of Amaziah, but anticipated his movements and so carried the war into the enemy’s country. Josephus says that Joash threatened the captive Amaziah with death, if he did not compel the inhabitants of Jerusalem to open the gates, and grant him free admission with his army into the city; and that Amaziah, in fear for his life, brought about the admission of the enemy. This statement, although it stands by itself, and has no support from any other authority, does not, at any rate, contradict the biblical text. Instead of the chetib ειαΰε, in 2 Kings 14:13, the keri offers ειαΰ. In 2 Chronicles 25:23 there stands instead of either: εַ ?ιְ ?αִ ?ιΰֵ ?δεּ, i. e., “he brought him.” The Sept. have this reading in the verse before us also (ἤγαγεναὐτόν), and the Vulg. follows: adduxit eum. Thenius, therefore, adopts this as the original reading, but unnecessarily, for if Joash took Amaziah prisoner and did not put him to death, it is a matter of course that he took him with him when he went farther. The chronicler simply expresses himself a little more definitely. Although Jehoash did not need to besiege Jerusalem, yet he caused a large piece of its wall of fortification to be torn down, from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate. The former stood on the north side of the city, towards Ephraim, and was also called the gate of Benjamin, because the road to Ephraim ran through the territory of Benjamin. It is now called the gate of Damascus. The latter was to the west of this, at the point where the wall turned southward: i. e., at the northwest corner of the city. According to Thenius ςַ ?γ does not here denote the terminus ad quem, but only the direction in which, because the distance between them was more than 400 cubits, viz., 2,000 English feet. The question arises, however, whether Thenius has correctly fixed the situation of the corner-gate on his plan of the city, and whether the distance was as great as he supposes, as the city was laid out before the exile. In descriptions of localities, ςַ ?γ always serves to define the limit up to which, and not merely the direction. Josephus’ assertion that Jehoash caused a breach (διακοπή) 30 cubits wide to be made in the wall, and that he drove through this in a chariot with the captive king by his side, has no foundation in the biblical text. Jehoash’s purpose in ordering the wall to be torn down was not to get a grand gateway for a triumphal entry (Thenius), but to mark the city as captured, and as lying open on the side of Ephraim.—The “hostages” (2 Kings 14:14) were demanded by Jehoash especially because he, as Josephus expressly states, gave the king his freedom, but desired still to hold him in check. They were taken, no doubt, from the most important families, but they were hardly sons of the king himself, for, if they had been, it would probably have been so stated. The treasures, which the victor carried off, were not probably very great (see 2 Kings 13:18), and the word δַ ?πִּ ?ξְ ?φְ ?ΰִ ?ιν seems to hint at this. 2 Kings 14:15. Now the rest of the acts, &c. The repetition of the standing formula, in regard to Jehoash, after it had once been used in 2 Kings 13:12-13, has its explanation probably in this, that the author found it in the document from which he took 2 Kings 14:8-17, as well as in that from which he took chap. 13. An especial reason for adopting this explanation is that the formula is not precisely the same here as in the former place. “The name of the king of Israel is there written three times ιεֹ ?ΰָ ?ωׁ, whereas we have here twice ιְ ?δεֹ ?ΰָ ?ωׁ. The latter form is preserved throughout the section 2 Kings 14:8-17, whereas in 2 Kings 14:1 the shorter form occurs. Here, the natural succession of the details is observed (death, burial, successor); there, there is a transposition (death, successor, burial)” (Thenius). Nevertheless, the author may have been led to repeat the formula because 2 Kings 14:17 “contains an important statement which is connected with Joash’s death,” namely, that Amaziah lived and reigned for fifteen years after Joash died. The author felt obliged to repeat the notice of Joash’s death, as an introduction to this statement (Superflua non nocent). 2 Kings 14:17. And Amaziah, &c. This chronological datum stands in perfect accord with the ones before given in 2 Kings 14:1-2 and in 2 Kings 13:10. Amaziah reigned in all 29 years; 15 after Joash’s death; therefore, 14 with him. As Joash reigned 16 years, Amaziah’s succession falls in his second year, as is stated in 2 Kings 14:1. [See the translator’s note on 2 Kings 14:22.—If we bear in mind that Amaziah’s war with Edom took place before that with Joash, we are led to infer that the latter took place shortly before Joash’s death. The old expositors adopted the supposition that Amaziah spent the 15 years after Joash’s death in retirement and contempt, as a deposed king, and that the conspiracy was a consequence of his disgraceful defeat (2 Kings 14:19). There is no ground for such an hypothesis, however, for if the conspiracy had been formed after that defeat, it would not have been 15 years before it was consummated. The chronicler says (2 Kings 25:27): “Now, after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the Lord (i. e., from the time when he, after the victory over the Edomites, brought their gods back to Jerusalem with him, 2 Chronicles 25:14), they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem.” This time was before the war with Joash and the great defeat; it is only intended to assert that the unfortunate end of Amaziah was a punishment for his apostasy. The conspiracy must have had some other especial cause which is not stated. According to Thenius, who explains all the people of Judah (2 Kings 14:21) to mean the whole military force, it was a conspiracy of the army. It may be, however, that a general dissatisfaction arose among the people from other causes, and that this finally led to the conspiracy.—Lachish was originally a royal city of the Canaanites in the lowlands of southern Palestine. Joshua conquered it, and afterwards gave it to the tribe of Judah (Joshua 10:31; Joshua 15:39). Rehoboam fortified it against the Philistines (2 Chronicles 11:9). Amaziah fled to this place, probably because he could easily flee across the frontier from there if the necessity should arise. The conspirators seem to have followed upon his heels. According to 2 Kings 14:20 it is probable that they brought the slain king back to Jerusalem in his own royal chariot. 2 Kings 14:21. And all the people of Judah took, &c. It is remarkable that, in this case also, the conspirators did not take one of their own number and make him king, but, as in 2 Kings 12:22, they adhered to the succession of the house of David. It is doubtful whether Azariah was the oldest son of Amaziah, for it is most probable that the latter, at the age of 54, when he died, left sons older than this boy of 16 years. The expression ιִ ?χְ ?ηεּ appears to imply that they chose this boy on account of some peculiar characteristics.—The new king is called here and in 2 Kings 15:1; 2 Kings 15:6-8; 2 Kings 15:17; 2 Kings 15:23; 2 Kings 15:27, ςֲ ?ζַ ?ψְ ?ιָ ?δ; on the contrary, in 2 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 15:31-32; 2 Kings 15:34, as in the Chronicle (except 1 Chronicles 3:12), [and in Isaiah 1:1; Isaiah 6:1; Hosea 1:1; Amos 1:1; Zechariah 14:5], he is called ςֻ ?ζִּ ?ιָּ ?δ. Against the explanation that ςζψιδ is an error of the copyist, arising from the similarity of the ψ and the ι, is the consideration that the error, if it be an error, is repeated so often. “We must rather suppose that the king really had both these names, which are very closely connected” (Keil). [In the ed. of 1865, he says that they are used “promiscuously.”] Vatablus: duo nomina habuit affinia: Fortitudo Domini, et Auxilium Domini. [The two names are at least very nearly equivalent in etymological meaning: ςζψιδ (he whose) Help (is) Jehovah; ςζιδ (he whose) Strength (is) Jehovah. Bertheau calls attention to a similar case, In 1 Chronicles 25:4, among the sons of Heman, is one who is called Uzziel. A comparison of the names in the subsequent repetition shows that he is the person called Azareel in 2 Kings 14:18.—W. G. S.] This is quite possible in view of the frequency with which names are changed in the Orient. The name Uzziah seems to have been generally used after his accession to the throne (see the places where it occurs in the later prophets, which are quoted above). 2 Kings 14:22. On Elath, see note on 1 Kings 9:26. Either Amaziah did not push forward as far as this important port of commerce, in his expedition against the Edomites, or else he was unable to retain possession of it after his defeat by Joash, at Beth Shemesh; but Edom was not a valuable possession for Judah except as it involved the possession of Elath. That the new king took this city and “built” it, that is, either extended it or strengthened it, was a most important event for the kingdom, and especially for his own authority. That is why it is here mentioned by anticipation at the beginning of his reign, whereas his further history is not given until later, in 2 Kings 15:1-7. We cannot infer from the clause: after that the king slept with his fathers, that Azariah undertook this expedition “at once” (Thenius), and advanced victoriously to Elath, for he was, at the time of his accession, a boy of 16 years. However, it may well have been in the early part of his reign. [This clause is very enigmatical. No satisfactory explanation of it has ever been offered. It is said that a certain king died, another succeeded, and when the author goes on to mention the acts of the latter’s reign, he says that he did a certain thing after the (former) king was dead, It is either a most idle and meaningless statement, or else it has a significance which has not yet been perceived. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that it alludes to the fact that Azariah was made king after his father was captured by Jehoash, and before he was released, and that he did this after his father’s release and death. This would account for Azariah’s youth at the time he was made king. 2 Kings 14:22 would then follow 2 Kings 14:14 in the connection of the narrative. In view of the form and substance of the intervening verses this is not at all impossible. After 2 Kings 14:14 the author goes on to tell (a) what became of Jehoash, (b) what became of Amaziah, (c) what the people of Judah did after their king was captured (2 Kings 14:22). The immediate release of Amaziah by Jehoash rests only upon the authority of Josephus. In connection with this the other remarkable datum in 2 Kings 14:17 may be noticed: Amaziah lived 15 years after Joash. (It is worth noticing that it does not say that he reigned.) Ewald understands this to mean that he lived as a captive, and was finally released by Jeroboam; but he does not suppose that Azariah was made king until after his father’s assassination. This would leave Judah kingless for 15 years, and force us to assume that its king was assassinated as soon as he was released. If, however, we suppose that, after Amaziah was taken away captive, his son was made king; that when Amaziah was released and returned to Judah, he was not welcome there; and that the conspiracy was formed to remove him, we have a consistent theory throughout. With regard, then, to the chronology: 2 Kings 15:1 says that Azariah became king in the 27th of Jerob. II. This is inconsistent with every other chronological datum, and is universally sacrificed (see the Comm. on the verse). Zachariah’s accession in the 38th of Azariah would fix Azariah’s accession in the 3d or 4th of Jeroboam, if we hold fast 41 years as the duration of Jeroboam’s reign. If, as seems very probable, Joash died soon after he defeated and captured Amaziah, then the people of Judah waited 3 or 4 years for the release of their king, and when this did not take place, they made Azariah king. Amaziah lived 11 years longer, was released, returned, and was assassinated, and Azariah was 27 years old when he took Elath. This construction is consistent with all the texts. The “29 years” in 2 Kings 14:2, cover the period from Amaziah’s accession to his death, and the “15 years” in 2 Kings 14:17 hold good. Azariah reigned for 52 years from the date of his coronation, or 41 years from the date of his father’s death. In the text his coronation is recognized as the true beginning of his reign, and the dates for the accession of Zachariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, and Jotham, are all consistent therewith. Against this construction is the strong consideration that the circumstances are not more distinctly narrated. We have no mention of Amaziah’s release at all. There are also difficulties connected with the chronology, but these confront us in any case. They can only be removed by arbitrary changes, and these changes can only be based upon conjecture. Every time that I have re-examined the chronology of this period the suspicion has been revived in my mind that the error, which undoubtedly inheres in it at this point, is to be sought in the duration ascribed to the reign of Amaziah, although the chronologies almost all alter the data in regard to Jeroboam or Azariah. It may be that the clue to the solution of the difficulty lies in the captivity of Amaziah.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 14:23. In the fifteenth year of Amaziah, &c. This statement agrees with that in 2 Kings 14:1 and in ver 17. Amaziah ruled 29 years; 14 with Joash of Israel, and 15 with his son Jeroboam II. The further statement, however, that Jeroboam reigned for 41 years, is contradicted by 2 Kings 15:8, which says that the son and successor of Jeroboam, Zachariah, came to the throne in the 38th year of Azariah (Uzziah). Now if Jeroboam reigned with Amaziah for 15 years, and then 38 years more with Azariah, his entire reign was not 41 but 53 years, or if, as is probable, the 15 years and the 38 years were not all complete (see Pt. II., p. 86), then 51 years. As all the chronologers agree that Zachariah’s accession cannot be placed earlier than the 38th of Azariah, it is generally assumed, in order to account for the difference between 41 and 51 years, that an interregnum or anarchy of 10 years took place after the death of Jeroboam (Keil and others). But, according to 2 Kings 14:29, Zachariah followed his father Jeroboam, not after an interval of 10 or 11 years, but immediately after his death. Moreover there is not the slightest sign, in the history, of any period of anarchy, though such a period must certainly have been marked by some important incidents, and we may not make history in order to account for a single inconsistent chronological statement. According to Hosea 1:1, that prophet labored under Jeroboam II., and also under Hezekiah, who did not come to the throne until 727 b. c. Now, if Jeroboam only reigned 41 years, from 823 to 782, Hosea must have labored as a prophet publicly before 782 and after 727, that is, for over 60 years; but this hardly seems possible. But if Jeroboam reigned 51 years, 823–772, then still Hosea’s public work covers the great but not impossible time of 50 years. For all these reasons we are compelled to conclude, with Thenius, that there is an error here in copying the letters which designate the numbers (ξΰ = 41 for πΰ = 51), and that the latter would be the correct number. Wolff (see Pt. II., p. 89), with whose other combinations we do not agree, considers the number 41 incorrect, and reckons the years of the reign of Jeroboam II. at 52. [See bracketed note on 2 Kings 14:22. 2 Kings 14:25. He restored the coast of Israel, &c. As in 1 Kings 8:65; Amos 6:2; Amos 6:14, Hamath, by which we must understand not a city merely, but also a district of Syria (2 Kings 23:33; 2 Kings 25:21), is here used to designate the northern boundary of Palestine. The sea of the plain is the Dead Sea (Deuteronomy 3:17; Joshua 3:16), the ordinary designation of the southern boundary of Palestine, east of the Jordan, which is more definitely marked on the frontier of Moab by the brook Arnon which flows into the Dead Sea (Isaiah 16:2). [cf. also Amos 6:14. Jonah is the well-known prophet (Jonah 1:1) from the city of Gath-Hepher, which lay in the territory of Zebulon (Joshua 19:13). This oracle does not lose any of its historical value from the fact that it is not to be found in the “Book of Jonah” which we possess. It is incomprehensible how Menzel could suppose that the book of Jonah “contains this prophecy in a metaphorical form, although not directly.” Others, as Hitzig and Knobel, think that Isaiah 15, 16 contains the oracle of Jonah here referred to, an hypothesis which rests upon a very weak basis.—In 2 Kings 14:26-27 it is explained how it came about that the frontiers were restored by a king who still maintained the worship of Jeroboam’s calves. The ground for this lay in Jehovah’s pity for His chosen people. He had not yet declared that He would blot it out for its apostasy. He helped it out of the deep distress into which it had been brought by the Syrians (2 Kings 13:3; 2 Kings 13:7), and prospered it to an extent which was no longer to be expected or hoped for; for, though Jehoash had recovered all the lost cities on this side of the Jordan, yet all the territory beyond the river was still in the hands of the Syrians. Jeroboam was the one who recovered it. On ςָ ?φεּ ?ψ and ςָ ?ζεּ ?α see note on 1 Kings 14:10; cf. Deuteronomy 32:36.—In 2 Kings 14:28, δֵ ?ωִׁ ?ια cannot be translated otherwise than as in 2 Kings 14:25 : he brought back. Ewald desires to strike out μִ ?ιδεּ ?γָ ?δ and then to read μִ ?ιωְ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ instead of αְּ ?ιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ: “He recovered Damascus and Hamath for Israel.” These changes are as violent as they are unnecessary. μִ ?ιδεּ ?γָ ?δ is a periphrasis for the genitive, because the proper names do not admit of any form for the stat. const. (Keil, Thenius), and αְּ before ιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ means to or for. As, however, neither the cities nor the districts of Hamath and Damascus ever belonged to Judah or Israel, it is impossible to say, in the strict sense of the words, that he brought them back. David had, indeed, once conquered a part of Syria (Damascus, 2 Samuel 8:5-6), and Solomon had conquered a part of Hamath (2 Chronicles 8:3-4). It was these districts, which had long before made themselves independent of any authority of Israel, which Jeroboam recovered. The sense is then: Jeroboam re-established the frontiers of the kingdom as they had once been under David and Solomon, i. e., at the most flourishing period of the kingdom. AND ETHICAL1. The reign of Amaziah had, in general, the same course as that of his father Joash (chap. 12). “We see the same good beginning, the same bad progress, and the same sad and terrible ending in the case of Amaziah as in that of Joash” (Schlier). The text itself affirms this by the words: “He did in all things like as Joash his father had done” (2 Kings 14:3). The reasons why he clung, at the commencement of his reign, to the lawful worship of. Jehovah, were rather external and traditional than the result of an internal conviction. He may have seen that this was necessary for the maintenance of his authority, just as the kings of Israel considered it necessary for political reasons to maintain the worship of Jeroboam’s calf-images. It certainly was not an affair of the heart with him (2 Chronicles 25:2). “He was a soldier with all his heart, and he was nothing more” (Calw. Bibel). He wanted military glory, and therefore, immediately after his accession to the throne, he collected a large army, and also hired mercenaries from Israel (2 Chronicles 25:5-6). The Edomites had not provoked in any way the attack upon themselves; it was purely an expedition for conquest. The brilliant victory which he won made him arrogant, and intensified his thirst for war, so that he, in haughty self-confidence and without external occasion, challenged Israel to war, and insisted even when the latter put aside the challenge and warned him to give up his plan. His arrogance was severely punished; he was subjected to a humiliation such as no king of Judah had experienced, not even his father Joash. The Chronicler represents this as a divine judgment upon him because he introduced the worship of the gods of Edom into Judah upon his return from the expedition, and repelled haughtily the warning of a prophet against this course (2 Chronicles 25:14-16). There is no occasion at all to doubt this story, as Thenius does, because it “is intended to put in pragmatic form the theocratic explanation of the unfortunate result of the war with Israel.” Neither is it contradictory to 2 Kings 14:3. The idea that divine judgments follow upon idolatry and the worship of false gods is one which runs through the entire Old Testament economy; it is not peculiar to the Chronicler, but was held also by the author of the Books of Kings, and, indeed, by all the Old Testament writers. Amaziah’s unfortunate and shameful end showed that it was not enough for a king of Judah to observe the law for mere external and political reasons, but that he fulfilled his calling only when he, like David, clung to Jehovah “with all his heart.” 2. It has been regarded as a proof of extraordinary humanity on the part of Amaziah that, although he put to death, upon his accession, the murderers of his father, nevertheless he spared their sons and relatives, contrary to the course which was commonly pursued in such cases (Curtius 6, 2 Kings 11 : Lege cautum erat, ut propinqui eorum, qui regi insidiati cum ipsis necarentur. Cf. Cic. ad Brut. 15). “We see,” says Eisenlohr (Das Volk Israel, II. s. 203), “that there was a remarkable development and growth of moral feeling in the nation, and that a humane and generous culture gradually supplanted the former harshness. We are forced to recognize this movement in spite of exceptional instances to the contrary, and we see that it went hand in hand with the decay of the more rigid and formal conception of moral relations, and with the growth of a more expanded moral vision.” But there are no signs of any progress in humanity at this period. On the contrary, we are rather forced to infer from the oracles of the prophets Amos and Hosea, that it was a time of rudeness and violence. As for Amaziah, it is impossible to speak of any humane disposition in a man who, after killing 10,000 Edomites in battle, proceeded to throw from a rock 10,000 more who had been captured alive (2 Chronicles 25:11-12). The author only means to say that Amaziah, in the beginning of his reign, was guided by the precepts of the Law, and that he obeyed them also in regard to the punishment of those concerned in the murder of his father, and their children. This law came from Moses, and was not the product of a later and (as is asserted) more humane time. This is not disproved by the fact that the precept in question is contained in the Book of Deuteronomy, for that book did not repeal or abolish former statutes, it only renewed and extended them. Hitzig is decidedly in error when he says, on Jeremiah 31:29 (cf. Ezekiel 18:2 sq.); “The punishment of the sins of the fathers upon the children, a legal institution of the old covenant, is, according to 2 Kings 14:29, repealed. This repeal is accomplished (2 Kings 14:31) by abolishing the entire former covenant.” In the places cited, the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel are attacking the popular error that God had left the guilty parents unpunished, and was now punishing the children for their sins (cf. Havernick on Ezekiel 18). The author of this passage in Kings is not speaking of God’s punishment of men, but of the punishment of the sons of the murderers by the king, i. e., by the civil power. The civil punishment of the sons of wrong-doers for the crimes of their fathers was abolished, not in the time of Ezekiel or Jeremiah, but by the law of Moses. Amaziah’s conduct was not dictated by thirst for vengeance against the fathers, nor by humane pity for the sons. It was rather a simple act of justice, in which he behaved, both towards the fathers (Exodus 21:12; Leviticus 24:17), and towards the sons (Deuteronomy 24:16), according to the Law. [The question of the degree of humanity to be ascribed to Amaziah is of little importance. It is certain that his conduct was very different from that which was observed on all the changes of dynasties in Israel, and by Athaliah in Judah. These events were marked by the wholesale bloodshed which was common in similar cases elsewhere in the Orient. The author of the book of Kings ascribes this action of the king to his loyalty to the law of Moses, i. e., Deuteronomy. The bearing of the text on the question of the time of composition of the book of Deuteronomy is plain. If the author is correct in his explanation of Amaziah’s conduct, then the Book of Deuteronomy was in existence at this time. This is not the place to discuss the general evidence for the time of composition of that book, but the evidence of this verse can only be avoided by supposing that the author carried back to Amaziah the ideas of a book which was written 150 years after his death, but before the time when the Book of Kings was written, or else that this verse was put in by the compiler. Those who maintain the late origin of Deuteronomy are divided between these explanations.—The idea that God punishes the sins of the fathers upon the children is certainly found in the Mosaic Law (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 5:9), and it is a simple fact of observation and experience, both in history and in private life. This is at once a proof and a consequence of the solidarity of the human race. No man can commit an action which will not have greater or less effect upon his contemporaries and upon succeeding generations. Those on whom the punishment falls complain of injustice in this order of things, as the Jews did who had to bear the captivity, while their fathers, who had incurred the penalty, had lived in luxury and sin and died in peace, at home. Against them the prophets maintained the justice of God in his dealings with individuals, and the responsibility of each for his own sins only. This was, undeniably, a modification or explanation of Deu 5:9. Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:29 sq.) represents it as a new covenant which is to take the place of the old. Deuteronomy 24:16 is entirely different. It forbids, plainly and most justly, that men shall imitate the course of nature, which entails upon the children the consequences of the father’s sins, by inflicting upon children physical punishment for their fathers’ crimes. The latter alone comes into the discussion of Amaziah’s conduct.—W. G. S.] 3. The representation of king Joash which is here given us supplements essentially the portrait of him which we had in the last chapter. The manner in which he here repels Amaziah’s challenge is not by any means a well-meant warning; it is rather calculated to exasperate him, and to stimulate his thirst for war still further. It bears witness, not to faith and trust in God, but to great self-confidence and arrogance. The old spirit of Ephraim appears here again, and, pluming itself upon superior numbers, and external greatness and power, looks down contemptuously upon Judah. The parable of the cedar of Lebanon and the briar-bush at its feet is a piece of genuine oriental bombast, for which Joash had the less ground inasmuch as all that part of Israel beyond Jordan was still in the hands of the Syrians, and Israel was altogether in a distressed condition from which Jeroboam II. was the first to relieve it (2 Kings 14:26). Moreover, Joash did not bear in mind that fire can go forth, even out of a briar, and consume the cedars of Lebanon (Judges 9:15). For the rest, Joash sustained himself here as a valiant soldier; he did not wait for Amaziah to attack him, but took the initiative himself, pushed on to the neighborhood of Amaziah’s capital, inflicted upon him a signal defeat, and took him captive. We are not told why he did not put him to death, and, after taking Jerusalem, put an end to the kingdom of Judah, as Nebuchadnezzer afterwards did (chap. 25). It can hardly have been from magnanimity that he took the captive king with him to Jerusalem, left him upon the throne, and contented himself with hostages. It is more natural to suppose that he did this from arrogance. The “cedar” treated the “briar” with contempt, and let him go as beneath fear. Nevertheless he took hostages as security. We have to recognize here a dispensation of Him who meant indeed to humble Amaziah (2 Chronicles 25:20), but who would not permit that Israel should become master of Judah. 4. Jeroboam II. reigned, oven if we take the number 41 to be correct, longer than any other king of Israel. The history of his reign is given here very concisely, and, with the exception of the incidental mention, Amos 7:10, we have no further information. Besides the fact that he, like all his predecessors, maintained the worship of the calf-images, we are only told in regard to him that God, according to the prophecy of Jonah, through him rescued Israel from its bitter distress, and that he restored the frontiers of the country as they had existed under David and Solomon. The complete defeat of the Syrians, and the expulsion of these arch-enemies, who had brought the kingdom to the verge of ruin, had the most important consequences. These events took place early in the reign of Jeroboam, and they show us Jeroboam as the most able and energetic of the kings of Israel. The latter part of his reign seems to have passed away without any decisive events. It was a time of peace and quiet, in which, as 2 Kings 13:5 says, “The children of Israel dwelt in their tents as before,” and the people enjoyed the fruit of the victory over the Syrians. It follows that Jeroboam was not only a valiant soldier, but also a prudent ruler, who understood how to use the time of peace so as to raise the material condition of his people. From the prophecies of the contemporary prophets Amos and Hosea, it is evident that the kingdom had then attained a state of prosperity such as it had never before enjoyed (cf. Amos 6:4-6; Amos 3:15; Hosea 12:8). The deep depravity of the people, however, appeared just at this time, for, instead of being led, by God’s bountiful goodness, to repentance, they were stimulated to pride, so-that Hosea said: “According to their pasture, so were they filled,” &c. (Hosea 13:6). Not only did the worship of the calf-images continue, but also the worship of false gods increased (Hosea 4:12; Hosea 4:17; Hosea 8:4; Hosea 11:2; Hosea 13:2). A shocking corruption of morals found entrance at the same time: luxury, debauchery, shameless licentiousness, injustice, violence, falsehood, and deceit of all kinds (Amos 2:6 sq.; 2 Kings 3:9; 2 Kings 5:12; 2 Kings 6:4-7; Hosea 4:1-2; Hosea 4:18), so that the kingdom went on from the height of its prosperity, only the more surely, towards its final downfall. (See the next chapter.) In so far, the time of Jeroboam was a turning point in the history of Israel. It gave the proof that this nation could better endure misfortune and oppression of every kind than earthly glory and prosperity; therefore the Lord allowed it, for its own salvation, to fall from its position as an independent nation (2 Kings 17:6 sq.). 5. The prophet Jonah, who foretold the victory of Jeroboam over the Syrians, and the restoration of the ancient boundaries by him, must have appeared in the early part of his reign. He is the first of the line of prophets who not only spoke (preached), but also wrote down their prophecies. A new phase of prophecy begins with him, so that in this respect also the reign of Jeroboam was most important for the history of redemption. Up to this point the activity of the class of prophets of whom Elijah and Elisha were the chief, was especially [and almost exclusively] directed to the present, and aimed to bring about a return from the worship of the calves, and from idolatry, to the fundamental law of Israel. They seized upon events and circumstances, not so much by their teaching and preaching, as by their acts, and their acts were signs, that is, they were acts which transmitted a divine revelation. “Since now,” as Hasse (Geschichte des Alten Bundes, s. 110 sq.) remarks, “the house of Jehu, which owed everything to the prophets, also failed to return to the original purity of the Israelitish constitution, and since it persevered in its idolatry even under Jeroboam II., who no longer had any foreign enemy to fear, every hope of a reformation in the northern kingdom had to be given up, and the prophets could no longer hope to accomplish anything there by actual interference [i. e., by such acts as the deposing of one dynasty and the institution of another. Even that extreme measure had failed in the case of the house of Jehu]; they could only allow the evil to go on to its consummation. They, therefore, gradually withdrew from the direction of affairs, and regarded it as their only remaining task to make known to this stubborn and hard-hearted generation the judgment which it was bringing down upon itself. Just at the time, therefore, when the northern kingdom was at the very height of its glory, Amos and Hosea proclaimed to it its approaching ruin, and, because Judah had also been tainted by the contagion of apostasy, Joel also appeared there at the same time, as herald of the coming judgment. This judgment could not, of course, arrest the higher destiny of Israel. Therefore the prophets saw beyond it a new and purified Israel arise, and form a united kingdom under a sceptre of the house of David, which should embrace the heathen also. The Messianic kingdom, therefore, rose up more and more distinctly as the end and aim of the entire development, as the true kingdom of God, and promises of this kingdom were joined with threats of judgment. Now for the first time did prophecy become truly prophecy—that is, a vision of coming salvation which stretched forward into and anticipated the future; and where the prophets had hitherto made use of word of mouth only, in order to influence the present, and their immediate surroundings, they now made use of writing, because coming generations also were to learn what they had received into their souls.” Instead of recognizing a turning-point in the history of the prophetic institution at the time of Jeroboam, Ewald asserts (Gesch. iii. s. 565 sq. 3d ed. 607 sq.) that there was a “complete dissolution of the ancient prophetic institution” at that time. “The entire school (of Elijah and Elisha) degenerated, and moved, not forwards, but backwards.” The cause of this was that “the violent and imperious character which clung to all the old kind of prophecy, but especially to its developments in the northern kingdom, could no longer be maintained over against the crown. The bow was stretched too hard—it had to break.… A new form of the prophetical institution now arose.… This did not aim to be an independent power in the kingdom, to exercise a control which admitted of no contradiction, to set up and to depose kings,” &c., &c. This theory rests upon the erroneous premise mentioned above (Hist., § 7, on Chap. 9), that the ancient prophetical institution stood opposed to the crown as one independent power to another, and that they strove for the mastery, whereas the former was only a divinely appointed corrective for the latter. If we were to charge any of the prophets with violent and imperious behavior, this charge would fall first of all upon the new order of them, Hosea and Amos for instance, in comparison with whose words those of Elijah and Elisha sound mild and gentle. Jeremiah, who came still later, was called to the prophetic office with the words: “See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down,” &c. (Jeremiah 1:10; cf. Jeremiah 18:7). The development of the prophetical institution stands in exact relation to the history of Israel, and is conditioned upon it. It does not break off with Elisha, who died under Jeroboam’s predecessor. The word-prophets stand upon the shoulders of the deed-prophets, and carry on the work which they had founded and begun. AND 2 Kings 14:1-20. The Reign of Amaziah. (a) The good beginning, 2 Kings 14:1-7; (b) the deterioration as it advanced, 2 Kings 14:8-14; (c) the sad ending, 2 Kings 14:17-20. 2 Kings 14:3. In cases like that of Amaziah, where faith is not completely and sincerely an affair of the heart (2 Chronicles 25:2), it has no firm foundation and is quickly overwhelmed, either by unbelief or by superstition. A half-and-half disposition in what is good is a bridge which leads to what is evil.—In sacred and spiritual affairs we have not to ask, how did our fathers do? but, how would God have us do? Because Amaziah only did as his father had done, he finally fared as his father had fared. 2 Kings 14:5-6. The civil authority does not carry the sword in vain, but it is an avenger to inflict punishment upon him who does wickedly (Romans 13:4). It is as much a sin to leave the guilty unpunished as to punish the innocent. Right and justice are distorted by both courses. Where regicides are allowed to go unpunished, out of pity or weakness, there all justice ceases. The throne [and the civil authority] are not established by weak concessions, but by righteousness (Proverbs 16:12).—Although the faults of the fathers are not nowadays visited upon the children, yet it is not rare that the son suffers from enmity which his father incurred. 2 Kings 14:7-14. Pride goes before a Fall. (a) Amaziah’s arrogance; (b) his fall. 2 Kings 14:7. Victory cometh from the Lord (Proverbs 21:31). If Amaziah had seen and believed this, he would have given to God the honor, and would have humbled himself; but he ascribed the victory to himself and to his own power, and so became haughty and arrogant (Jeremiah 17:5; Jeremiah 17:7).—Extraordinary success in our undertakings is a great temptation to arrogance (Wόrt. Summ.: Those must be strong legs which can support great good fortune and prosperity). God blesses our undertakings in order that we may become, not haughty, but humble (Genesis 32:10-11). Every undue self-exaltation robs us of the blessing again. Paul labored with greater success than any other of the apostles, but he was so far from proudly exalting his heart on this account that he called himself the least of the apostles, and said: “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Corinthians 15:9-10). 2 Kings 14:8. To commence a war from mere lust for war and victory is an abomination in the sight of God. Quarrelsomeness among common people is the same as love of war among kings. The word of God says: “Follow peace with all men” (Hebrews 12:14), and: “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). 2 Kings 14:9-10. As you shout, so will the echo be. He who over-estimates his own strength, and pushes himself forward into the charge of things which he is not capable of managing, must not be surprised if he is contemptuously corrected. The warning to “Enjoy your victory (which you have already won) and stay at home!” belongs justly to vanity and self-exaltation.—He who desires to correct another for his arrogance must take good care not to fall into the same fault himself. Blame and complaint for the pride and arrogance of others often come from hearts which exalt themselves too much.—Do not parade your wisdom and strength, if you really possess them. The Lord breaks down even the cedars of Lebanon (Psalms 29:5; cf. Isaiah 2:12-13). Little David, when he comes in the might of the Lord, is a match for the giant Goliath. 2 Kings 14:11. When the humiliating truth is spoken out with scorn and derision, although it is in itself beneficial, yet it only exasperates and embitters, instead of leading to self-knowledge. As a bee sucks honey even out of a poisonous flower, so also a sincere and truth-loving soul will win even from the scorn and mockery of its enemies something good and beneficial for itself.—Arrogance and love of honor make men deaf to every warning and incapable of considering what is really best for them. But he who will not hear must feel. 2 Kings 14:11-14. The defeat and fall of Amaziah proclaim loudly: (a) “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18). “The stone falls back upon the head of him who casts it into the air” (Sir 27:28). (b) He who desires too much, loses even that which he already has; therefore, “Godliness with contentment is great gain” (1 Timothy 6:6). 2 Kings 14:13-16. “What is a man profited,” &c. (Matthew 16:26). Joash won a great battle, took the king prisoner, conquered Jerusalem, and came back to Samaria crowned with glory and laden with gold and silver; but the best thing, the God who was yet worshipped and honored in Judah, he did not bring. He remained in the sins of Jeroboam until his end. 2 Kings 14:17-20. It is the great grace of God when a long time is given to a man who has sinned grievously in order that he may make good again the harm which his sins have done, but then the responsibility is all the heavier when the limited time expires. There stands written on the tombstone of Amaziah by the finger of God this great and eternal truth: “God will resist the proud!” 2 Kings 14:23-29. See Histor. And Eth. 2 Kings 14:25-27. Israel’s deep misery (Jeremiah 2:19), and God’s great pity (Psalms 103:10; Hosea 11:8).—Wόrt. Summ.: Our faithful God helps us out of trouble according to His great compassion, even when we have not deserved it of Him, but often not until our distress has reached the highest pitch and no help is to be expected from any other quarter.—When God not only helps us out of trouble which we have not deserved, but also gives us besides what we never could have hoped for or expected, He thereby says to us: “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked,” &c. (Ezekiel 33:11; Romans 2:4). 2 Kings 14:25. In times of need and calamity God provides faithful servants who bear witness to his pity and call men’s attention to the one thing needful. Well is it for those who listen to these voices and do not harden their hearts. 2 Kings 14:28-29. Jeroboam had striven for the external prosperity of his people, and, when he died, he left the kingdom in a more flourishing condition than any previous king of Israel. For its spiritual welfare, however, he had done nothing. Calf-worship and the service of false gods had continued, and a moral rottenness had found entrance, which brought the kingdom near to ruin. So has many a one, at his death, left to his children treasures which he had won by long labor and care, but those children have not been bred in the fear and love of God, and have not been taught that “The world passeth away and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever” (1 John 2:17; 1 Peter 1:24 sq.). Footnotes: 2 Kings 14:4.—[The participle here marks an event which was going on at the same time with another. Examples of this are numerous. Cf. 1 Kings 1:5; 1 Kings 3:26; 1 Kings 4:24; 2 Kings 8:5. 2 Kings 14:6.—The keri is the result of a desire to reproduce literally the text of Deuteronomy, but it is unnecessary. Read the chetib, ιָ ?ξεּ ?ϊ. 2 Kings 14:8.—[τָּ ?πִ ?ιν ,πִ ?ϊְ ?ψָ ?ΰֶ ?δτָ ?πִ ?ιν is acc. of the part affected. “Let us look upon one another, as to the face” = “let us look upon one another’s face,” i.e., “let us measure strength with one another.” Ewald (Lehrbuch, § 281, c) explains it: “Let us look upon one another as to the person,” i.e., in person. 2 Kings 14:13.—[The keri is unnecessary. Punctuate the chetib εַ ?ιָּ ?αΰεֹ. 2 Kings 14:14.—[Literally: “Sons of pledges.” 2 Kings 14:25.—[ξִ ?μְּ ?αεֹ ?ΰ would be literally from as far as; i. e., it expresses that he penetrated up as far as Hamath, came near to that place, and then made it a point of departure on the north, from which he extended his conquests southward to the Dead Sea. 2 Kings 14:26.—[ξψֶֹ ?δ from ξψδ. Gesen. (Thes. s. v.) understands it to mean deep-rooted, of long standing, but the latest and best expositors agree to take ξψδ in the sense of ξψψ, to be bitter.—W. G. S.] THIRD SECTION The Monarchy Under Azariah (uzziah) And Jotham In Judah, And Under Zachariah And Others Until Hoshea, In Israel (2 Kings 15-17)A.—The reigns of Azariah and Jotham in Judah, and of Zachariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, and Pekah in Israel2 Kings 15:1-38. (2 Chronicles 26, 27) 1In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel [,] began [omit began] Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign [became king]. 2Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign [became king], and he reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem. 3And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according 4[like] to all that his father Amaziah had done; save that the high places were not removed; the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the high places. 5And the Lord smote [touched] the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house [house of sickness]. And Jotham the king’s son was over the house, judging the people of the land. 6And the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 7So Azariah slept with his fathers; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David: and Jotham his son reigned in his stead. 8In the thirty and eighth year of Azariah king of Judah did Zachariah the son of Jeroboam reign over Israel in Samaria six months. 9And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, as his fathers had done: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 10And Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him, and smote him before the people, and slew him, and reigned in his stead. 11And the rest of the acts of Zachariah, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. 12This was the word of the Lord which he spake unto Jehu, saying, Thy sons shall sit on the throne of Israel unto the fourth generation. And so it came to pass. 13Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign [became king] in the nine and thirtieth 14year of Uzziah king of Judah; and he reigned a full month in Samaria. For [And] Menahem the son of Gadi went up from Tirzah, and came to Samaria, and smote Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria, and slew him, and reigned in his stead. 15And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. 16Then Menahem [starting from Tirzah] smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts [environs] thereof from Tirzah [omit from Tirzah]: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up. 17In the nine and thirtieth year of Azariah king of Judah began [omit began] Menahem the son of Gadi to reign [became king] over Israel, and reigned ten years in Samaria. 18And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not all his days [omit all his days] from the sins of Jeroboam the son 19of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. And [In his days—omit And] Pul the king of Assyria came against the land: and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand. 20And Menahem exacted [imposed] the money of [upon] Israel, even of [upon—omit even of] all the mighty men of wealth, of [upon] each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land. 21And the rest of the acts of Menahem, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 22And Menahem slept with his fathers; and Pekahiah his son reigned in his stead. 23In the fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekahiah the son of Menahem began to reign [became king] over Israel in Samaria, and reigned two years. 24And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 25But Pekah the son of Remaliah, a captain of his, conspired against him, and smote him in Samaria, in the palace [citadel] of the king’s house, [together] with Argob and Arieh, and with him [i.e. Pekah there were] fifty men of the Gileadites: and he killed him, and reigned in his room. 26And the rest of the acts of Pekahiah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. 27In the two and fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekah the son of Remaliah began to reign [became king] over Israel in Samaria, and reigned twenty years. 28And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 29In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria. 30And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned [became king] in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah. 31And the rest of the acts of Pekah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. 32In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel began [omit began] Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah to reign [became king]. 33Five and twenty years old was he when he began to reign [became king], sand he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok. 34And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord: he did according [like] to all that his father Uzziah had done. 35Howbeit the high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burned incense still in the high places. He built the higher [upper] gate of the house of the Lord. 36Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 37In those days the Lord began to send against Judah Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah. 38And Jotham slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Ahaz his son reigned in his stead. AND 2 Kings 15:1. In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam. This chronological statement, although it appears in all the versions and in the massoretic text, is inconsistent with 2 Kings 14:2; 2 Kings 14:17; 2 Kings 14:23. Amaziah the father of Uzziah ruled in all 29 years (2 Kings 14:2), 14 years contemporaneously with Joash of Israel, and 15 years contemporaneously with his successor, Jeroboam II. (2 Kings 14:17; 2 Kings 14:23). Amaziah therefore died, and his son Uzziah succeeded him, in the 15th year of the reign of Jeroboam II., not in the 27th. In order to retain the number 27, it has been assumed that there was an interregnum of 11 or 12 years, although there is no mention of any such thing in the history. According to 2 Kings 14:20-21, Uzziah succeeded immediately upon the death of his father, and moreover, if this supposition were to be adopted, we should have to alter all the other chronological statements in chaps. 14 and 15 Cf. the Excursus on the Chronology, below, after chap. 17. Evidently there has been an interchange of the numerical signs here, λζ, 27, has been put for θε, 15, as Capellus and Grotius supposed, and as all the expositors, even including Keil and Von Gerlach, now assume. [Thenius, adopting this solution of the difficulty, calls attention to the testimony which it bears to the antiquity of the use of θε, instead of ιδ, to represent 15. The latter being the abbreviation for ιδεδ, was avoided, as is well known, when it should have occurred in the list of numerals to represent fifteen. If θε ever stood there, of course the inference is good, that, even at a very early time, the superstitious reverence for the name εδεδ had gone so far as to produce this change in the mode of writing the number. In fact, however, the change here from 27 to 15 is purely arbitrary. It must be defended by considerations drawn from the context. Any argument in its favor which is deduced from the greater or less resemblance of λζ to θε is of little value. Other letters would have as great or greater resemblance. We ought to understand that, when we abandon the text as it stands, we make arbitrary changes, and we must justify them by critical grounds. We only deceive ourselves when we imagine that there is a resemblance between the numerals in the text and those we want to put there, and so persuade ourselves that we have found further support for our conjecture. That number must be put in the place of 27, which the best critical combinations require. The expositors almost all agree in reading 51 (53) for 41 as the duration of Jeroboam’s reign, and then in reading 15 for 27 here, because Zachariah succeeded in Uzziah’s 38th. See, however, the bracketed note on 2 Kings 14:22, and the Appendix on the Chronology.—W. G. S.] Azariah, or Uzziah, was devoted to the worship of Jehovah, as Amaziah was at the commencement of his reign; like him, however, he still permitted the worship upon the high places. See notes on 2 Kings 14:3-4. The chronicler says that he sought Jehovah so long as the prophet Zachariah lived (2 Chronicles 26:5). [The chronicler does not charge him with idolatry at all. He accounts for his leprosy by telling how he trespassed upon the function of the priests. This he did from pride; nevertheless, it was rather too great zeal in the service of Jehovah than too little.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 15:5. And the Lord touched the king, &c. This did not take place until after Uzziah had accomplished what is narrated in 2 Chronicles 26:6-15. The ground which is there given (2 Kings 15:16) for the punishment with leprosy is, that he, being puffed up in consequence of his victories and of his powerful position, usurped priestly functions contrary to the law (Numbers 18:3; Numbers 18:7), and thereby violated the sanctuary. It is. hardly possible that he can have become a leper earlier than the last years of his long reign. His son Jotham, who ruled in his stead during his sickness, was only 25 years old when he became king in his own right by his father’s death (2 Kings 15:33).—αֵּ ?ιϊδַ ?ηָֽ ?τְ ?ωִׂ ?ιϊ does not mean: sick-house, or pest-house, as it is now generally translated, for ητωׁ means to be loose, free, that is, separated (Leviticus 19:20). Neither does it mean house of freedom, or manumission (Hengstenberg, Keil), but house of separation, i. e., a house which stands in the open country, by itself, separate from others. Vulg: in domo libera seorsum. [See Grammatical note on the verse.] According to the Law (Leviticus 13:46), the lepers had to dwell apart (αγγ), outside of the city or the camp (2 Kings 7:3). Probably the house in which the leprous king lived was especially built for him.—And Jotham the king’s son was over the house, i.e., he filled one of the highest offices of the court (cf. 1 Kings 4:6; 1 Kings 18:3; 2 Kings 18:18)—judging the people of the land (cf. 1 Samuel 8:6; 1 Samuel 8:20; 1 Kings 3:9), i. e., Vicarius erat regis, qui a populo segregatus fungi regiam potestatem non poterat (Grotius). As was said above (Pt. II., pp. 88 and 89), this passage bears strongly against the supposition that there occurred, in the Hebrew history, joint-regencies which are not specifically mentioned. Uzziah remained king until his death; up to that event, Jotham was not co-regent, but only the representative of his father.—In the city of David, 2 Kings 15:7. Instead of this the chronicler says (2 Chronicles 26:23): “In the field of the burial which belonged to the kings; for they said, He is a leper.” Bertheau remarks on this: “He was buried, according to this, near to the royal tombs (with his fathers), because they did not dare to put a king who had died of leprosy in the royal sepulchres, lest they should make them unclean.” 2 Kings 15:8. In the thirty and eighth year, &c. In regard to the correctness of this statement, see note on 2 Kings 14:23. The assassinations of kings which had been perpetrated before this, had taken place in secret, but this one was carried out in public, that is to say, boldly and without fear. The people saw it perpetrated without opposing it. The Sept. translate quite incorrectly: καὶ ἐπάταξεναὐτὸνἐνΚεβλαὰμ. Ewald considers χָ ?αָ ?μΞςָ ?ν a proper name, because ςָ ?ν has not the article [and because χָ ?αָ ?μ does not “occur elsewhere in prose,” and because the Sept. take it as a proper name]. He believes it to be the name of the “third king during that month” [see Zechariah 11:8]. He translates: “And Kobolam slew him.” Not to speak of any other objection to this, we should then expect to be told whose son he was, as in the similar cases, 2 Kings 15:14; 2 Kings 15:25; 2 Kings 15:30. [Stanley is the only scholar who has followed Ewald in this invention. The facts referred to in support of it are not by any means without weight, but the invention of another king is too ponderous a solution for them. Yet it is remarkable to notice that a form from the root χαμ forms a part of certain Assyrian proper names. (See the list of Assyrian kings at the end of vol. I. of Lenormant’s Manual of the History of the East, with foot-note thereon.) However, to take χָ ?αָ ?μΞςָ ?ν as a proper name in the place before us renders the passage awkward and unnatural.—W. G. S.] Thenius arbitrarily pronounces 2 Kings 15:12 to be an addition by the “redactor.” It refers back very significantly to 2 Kings 10:30. Zachariah was the fourth and last descendant of Jehu upon the throne of Israel. 2 Kings 15:13. Shallum the son of Jabesh, &c. As the one month, during which Shallum reigned, falls in the thirty-ninth year of the reign of Uzziah, the six months, during which Zachariah was king (2 Kings 15:8), must be placed in the last part of the 38th year of Uzziah’s reign; probably some of them fall even in the beginning of the 39th. According to Josephus, Shallum was a friend (φίλος) of Zachariah, and put him to death by taking advantage of this relation. When Menahem, ὁ στρατηγός (i.e., the commander-in-chief), who was then in Tirzah, heard this, he started up with his entire force, and marched to Samaria, καὶ σνμβαλὼνεἰςμάχηνἀναιρεῖ τὸνΣέλλουμον; after he had made himself king, ἐκεῖνενεἰςθαψὰνπαραγίνεταιπόλιν. Tirzah lay in the neighborhood of Samaria. See above, note on 1 Kings 14:17.—Then Menahem, 2 Kings 15:16, i.e., after he had made himself master of the throne. The verse contains a further continuation of 2 Kings 15:14, and tells more definitely what Menahem did, after he had killed Shallum, in order to become ruler of the country. This event does not belong to the reign of Menahem, for the story of that does not begin until the 17th verse, but it belongs to the incidents connected with his taking possession of the throne. It follows that Tiphsah is not the celebrated Thapsacus on the Euphrates (as it is in 1 Kings 5:4; see note thereon), as has often been supposed, and as Keil [and Rawlinson] yet maintain. Menahem could not, at any time, have undertaken an expedition against this far distant city, which formed the utmost limit of the kingdom of Solomon; least of all could he have undertaken this just after ascending the throne. He had enough to do to establish his usurped authority on a firm basis. Most commentators, therefore, correctly judge that Tiphsah was a city near Tirzah, of which, as of so many others which are mentioned but once, nothing further is known. The name ϊִּ ?τְ ?ρַ ?η, trajectus, ford, “may, in view of its appellative force, have been applied to many towns which lay near to fords” (Winer). There is not sufficient reason for believing that “ϊτρη is an error for ϊַּ ?τּ ?εּ ?ηַ,” a town on the border between Ephraim and Manasseh, Joshua 17:7-8 (Thenius).—ξִ ?ϊִּ ?ψְ ?φָ ?δ cannot be translated otherwise than as in 2 Kings 15:14. It does not therefore mean: “from Tirzah on,” i.e., to Tiphsah, but: “starting out from Tirzah,” and it is to be joined with ιַ ?λֶּ ?δ, not with βְּ ?αεּ ?μֶ ?ιδָ. The meaning of the passage is, therefore, this: When Menahem heard of the events which had happened in Samaria, he marched from Tirzah with his army, or a part of it, to Samaria, and there slew Shallum. Then he went back to Tirzah and marched out with his entire force to reduce the country to obedience to himself. In Tiphsah he met with obstinate resistance, but took the city by storm (Josephus: κατὰ κράτος), and chastised it and the surrounding territory in a horrible manner (Josephus: ὠμότητοςὑπερβολὴνοὐκαταλιπῶνοὐδὲ ἀγριότητος). He thereby frightened any others who might have been intending to resist, and so established himself on the throne. We have mention of a similar cruelty towards pregnant women in 2 Kings 8:12; Hosea 14:1 [E. V. xiii. 16]; Amos 1:13. If newspaper reports may be believed, a guerilla captain in Michoacan, Mexico, did the same thing in the year 1861. 2 Kings 15:17. In the nine and thirtieth year, &c. On the duration of Menahem’s reign, see note on 2 Kings 15:23. The closing words of 2 Kings 15:18 : λָּ ?μΞιָ ?ξָ ?ιε are nowhere else added to the stereotyped formula which recurs in that verse, although they would hold just as true of any of the other kings of Israel as of Menahem. The Sept. join the words to the following verse, and translate: ἐνταῖςἡμέραιςαὐτοῦ ἀνέβηΦούλ. They therefore read αιξιε, and Thenius and Keil, referring also to 2 Kings 15:29, agree in regarding this as the original reading of the text. By this change αָּ ?ΰ, at the commencement of 2 Kings 15:19, comes into a good connection of sense, and is not left abrupt; also there is no need for Hitzig’s emendation εּ ?αָ ?ΰ.—Pul. (2 Kings 15:19) is the first Assyrian king who is mentioned in the Old Testament. In fact this is the first reference to the Assyrians in the history of the Israelites. Since they had to come through Syria in order to reach Palestine, it follows that they must have reduced that country to subjection, and extended their power on this side of the Euphrates; i. e., Assyria must have commenced to take the position of a great world-monarchy. [Assyria had begun to take the position of a world-monarchy, but it must be understood that these expeditions were raids rather than complete conquests. Tribute was imposed and then the defeated nation was left intact. It refused the tribute as soon as it dared and then a new expedition was made against it. It was only after a long period of this vassal relationship that a conquered country was incorporated as a province of the empire. Accordingly very few were ever thus treated at all. The expression for incorporation used in the inscriptions is to “treat them like the Assyrians.”—W. G. S.] Hosea (2 Kings 8:10) calls the king of Assyria “The king of princes.” [“King of kings” is a standing epithet of the Assyrian monarchs upon their monuments.] It has often been inferred from Hosea 5:13; Hosea 7:11; Hosea 8:9 that Menahem invited the Assyrians to support him against other aspirants to the crown (Thenius), and that Pul came “to help the king to restore order” (Ewald). This notion is controverted by the expression αָּ ?ΰςַ ?μΞδָ ?ΰַ ?ψֶ ?υ, which is used of a hostile coming and attack, Genesis 34:25; Judges 18:21; Isaiah 10:28; Job 2:11. In 1 Chronicles 5:26, Pul’s coming is distinctly referred to as a hostile attack. Menahem induced the mighty enemy to withdraw from the country by a large sum of money, and then secured his alliance against internal and external foes. This last is what Hosea calls Israel’s going to Assyria. A thousand talents of silver are about two or two and a half million thalers [$1,440,000 or $1,800,000. The value of the talent is not surely and definitely known.] Menahem imposed this sum as a tax (ιֹ ?φֵ ?ΰ, he made the money go out) upon the “able ones” in Israel. βִ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ψֵ ?ιδַ ?ηַ ?ιִ ?μ are not here the mighty men of the army, but those who were strong in wealth (Job 20:15; Rth 2:1). Either there were no treasuries then in Israel, or, if there were any, they were empty. Menahem did not include the poor in this tax, in order that he might not excite discontent, and might not have to use force to collect it. Each man fifty shekels of silver. As a talent contained 3,000 shekels, there must have been 60,000 “mighty men of wealth.” The interpretation, that Menahem paid to Pul 50 shekels for every soldier in his army (Richter), is incorrect. It is often inferred, though incorrectly, from 1 Chronicles 5:26, that Pul, on his departure, took away Reuben and Gad and the half of Manasseh. This deed is ascribed there, as here, to Tiglath Pileser (see Bertheau on that passage). The assertion of the. Calw. Bibel that “this entire occurrence was prophesied in Amos 7:1-3,” has little or no foundation. 2 Kings 15:23. In the fiftieth year of Azariah, &c. As Menahem became king, according to 2 Kings 15:17, in the 39th of Uzziah, and ruled 10 years, we expect here the 49th year. Keil assumes that “some months passed between the death of Menahem and the accession of Pekahiah; probably because of the disorder which prevailed at the time, and which made this accession difficult.” We prefer to suppose that Menahem became king in the last months of the 39th year of Uzziah, and reigned for a month or two into his 50th, i.e., a few months over ten years. [This changes the form of the difficulty, but does not do away with it at all. If the facts had been as is here supposed, the Jewish mode of reckoning would have made Menahem’s reign 11 or 12 years in duration. There is a discrepancy which we cannot explain. We must either change the text, or pass it over, taking 10 years as the length of the reign and neglecting the other statement. The attempted explanations are futile.—W. G. S.] On ωָׁ ?μִ ?ιωׁ, 2 Kings 15:25, see Exeg. note on 1 Kings 9:22. It is not apposition to Remaliah (as Luther took it), but to Pekah. The citadel of the king’s house is not the harem (Ewald). It is the fortified part of the palace into which Pekahiah fled when the conspirators approached (cf. 1 Kings 16:18). [So far as we know there was no part of the Oriental palaces which was, in any proper sense, fortified. The Assyrian palaces which have been exhumed consist of three independent yet connected buildings, a hall of audience or business, a servants’ house, and the harem. The last was the most strictly enclosed and carefully guarded, and was the strongest for defence. It was connected by an enclosed cloister with the first mentioned building. If we may judge from this of the arrangement of a Samaritan palace, the ΰψξεο was the harem or included it.—W. G. S.] Josephus gives as the reason for his short reign of two years: τῇ τοῦ πατρόςκατακολουθήσαςὠμότητι. Argob and Arieh were no doubt high officials, and influential friends of the king, whose opposition was to be feared, and whom Pekah, therefore, put to death together with (ΰֶ ?ϊ) the king. The following ςִ ?ξּ ?εֹ shows that they were not fellow-conspirators of Pekah (as many have supposed) who, with him, murdered the king. The fifty Gileadites probably belonged to the body-guard which was under the command of Pekah. The Gileadites, who were stout soldiers (1 Chronicles 12:8; 1 Chronicles 26:31; Joshua 17:1), were employed in this department of the service. 2 Kings 15:27. In the two and fiftieth year, &c. On the chronological data in 2 Kings 15:27; 2 Kings 15:30, see below, after chap. 17. The following may suffice here: Pekah is said (2 Kings 15:27) to have reigned only 20 years. But, according to 2 Kings 15:32, he reigned two years before Jotham. The latter reigned 16 years. According to 2 Kings 17:1, Pekah’s successor, Hoshea, came to the throne in the 12th year of Jotham’s successor Ahaz. But 2 + 16 + 12 = 30. We are therefore compelled to conclude that the time from the accession of Pekah to that of Hoshea was thirty years. All the commentators agree in this. Then, either Pekah ruled 30 instead of 20 years, or he reigned 20 years and there was an interval of 10 years before the accession of his successor, Hoshea, during which there was no king in Israel, and, as those who adopt this view agree, there was anarchy. 2 Kings 15:30, however, contradicts this latter hypothesis, for it is there said that Hoshea slew Pekah and reigned in his stead, not after an interval of 10 years, but as soon as he had killed him. The history does not hint at any period of strife or anarchy, although such a period must have presented incidents worth recording We do not hesitate, therefore, to assume here, as in 2 Kings 15:1, that an error in copying has been made. The error here, in writing α, 20, for μ, 30, is one which could take place more easily than the one we discovered there (Thenius). All the other chronological data are consistent with 30 in this place, as we shall see below, on chap. 17. [See the translator’s addition below at the end of this Exeg. section.] 2 Kings 15:29. In the days of Pekah… came Tiglath Pileser. This Assyrian king was the successor of Pul. To which of the Assyrian dynasties he belonged, and whether he was the last of the dynasty of the Dercetadζ, are questions which do not interest us hero [?] (Keil on the passage). The signification of the name Tiglath-pileser (or, as the chronicler writes it, Tilgath-pilneser) is uncertain. According to Gesenius, Tiglath is equivalent to Diglath, the Tigris river, and pileser means lord: “Lord of the Tigris river.” According to Fόrst, Tiglath means acer, fortis.—[This is the etymological meaning of Diglath, applied to the Tigris from its swiftness. See the dictionaries on ηִ ?γֶּ ?χֶ ?μ.]—τִּ ?μ, arcere, and ΰֶ ?ρֶ ?ψ, prince; together: “The chief, as mighty defender.” According to others, Diglath is the name for the goddess Derceto, or Atargatis. [The name is transcribed from the cuneiform by Lenormant: Tuklat-pal-ashir; by Smith: Tukulti-pal-zara; by Rawlinson: Tiglat-pal-zira. Rawlinson (Five Great Monarchies, II. 539) gives the etymology thus: Tiglat is worship, or adoration (Chald. ϊְּ ?λַ ?μ, to trust in); pal is son (of this there is no doubt; it occurs in scores of names); zira is obscure; Sir. H. Rawlinson thinks that it means lord, “as Zirat certainly means lady.” However this last may be, Pal-zira, as a compound, was an epithet of the god Nin (= Hercules), and the king’s name would mean: “Worship to Hercules.” This is the only explanation yet offered which is anything more than a guess.—W. G. S.] On Ijon and Abel-beth-maachah, see notes on 1 Kings 15:20. Janoah cannot be the town on the border between Ephraim and Manasseh, which is mentioned Joshua 16:6 sq., for all the cities here mentioned were in the northern part of Palestine; it probably lay near those which have been mentioned. Kedesh was a free, levitical city in the tribe of Naphtali (Joshua 19:37; Joshua 20:7; Joshua 21:32); on the western bank of the sea of Merom (Robinson, Palest. III. 355). On Hazor see note on 1 Kings 9:15. Gilead with the article is not a city but the territory east of the Jordan which Jeroboam II. had recovered to Israel (2 Kings 14:25). On Galilee, or Galilah, see note on 1 Kings 9:11. All the land of Naphtali is an explanatory apposition to Galilah. The places are mentioned in the order in which they were conquered. The incident which is here narrated coincides with that in 2 Kings 16:9 (see Maurer on that verse) and belongs to the last years of Pekah’s reign. Perhaps it gave occasion to Hosea’s conspiracy against him. The chronological statement in 2 Kings 15:30 : in the twentieth year of Jotham, cannot be correct, for Jotham only reigned 16 years. See further, notes on chap. 17. 2 Kings 15:32. In the second year of Pekah, &c. On the section 2 Kings 15:32-38 see the parallel narrative in 2 Chronicles 27:1-9, which contributes further information in regard to Jotham. To the words: He did like to all that his father Uzziah had done, the Chronicler adds: “howbeit he entered not into the temple of the Lord,” i.e., into the inner sanctuary, by which it is meant to say that he did not usurp priestly functions as Uzziah had done (2 Chronicles 26:16). He did not abolish the worship on the heights (2 Kings 15:4 and 2 Kings 14:4). He built the upper gate, i.e., he restored it, he rebuilt it more splendidly, for it could not well be meant to assert that he built it at this time, and that there had been none before. δַ ?ςֶ ?μְ ?ιεֹ ?ο is not the highest gate, nor the chief gate, but “the upper one,” perhaps because it was toward the north, towards that part of the temple rock, which, as compared with the south side, was higher. (Bertheau, on 2 Chronicles 17:3). [“King Solomon’s palace was evidently at a lower level than the temple, and therefore (2 Chronicles 27:3) king Jotham may still have built much upon the wall.” (Jerusalem Restored, p. 222).] According to Ezekiel 40:38 sq., the sacrifices were slain at this gate. (Cf. Ezekiel 9:2; Ezekiel 8:5) This is probably the reason why Jotham made it especially beautiful. In Jeremiah 20:2 it is called the gate of Benjamin. It must not be confused with the gate ρεּ ?ψ, 2 Kings 11:6, for this was adjoining the palace (see Exeg. note on that ver.).—In those days (2 Kings 15:37), i.e., towards the end of Jotham’s reign, Jehovah began to send against Judah the confederated Israelites and Syrians, i.e., he brought this chastisement upon Judah (Leviticus 26:22; Amos 8:11). Rezin; “the name of the founder of the dynasty (1 Kings 11:23) [rather of the founder of the monarchy. There had been more than one dynasty.] appears again, slightly altered, in him who was to close it” (Thenius). The attacks were begun under Jotham; under his successor Ahaz (chap. 16) they first became threatening to the kingdom. As the Assyrians had already once penetrated into Palestine (2 Kings 15:19), and as Ahaz once more called on them for aid against Rezin and Pekah (2 Kings 16:7), we must suppose that the Syrians had, in the mean time, freed themselves once more from the Assyrian yoke (see notes on 2 Kings 15:19). This had probably become possible for them because the Assyrians, on account of the revolt of the Medes and Babylonians, were prevented for a time from maintaining their authority. Tiglath Pileser reconquered Damascus (2 Kings 16:9). [Supplementary Note on the references to Assyrian history contained in chap. 15.—The references to contemporaneous history which occur in the text are of the highest value for the solution of the chronological difficulties, and for the elucidation of the history. Every such reference, therefore, requires our most careful attention. In the three years since the German edition of this volume was published most important contributions have been made to our knowledge, especially of Assyrian history. It is difficult to understand how the German author could lay aside all notice of the results which had been attained, even at that time, and refuse to take notice of them. The time has now certainly come when biblical scholars must give them attention, and a summary of the information we possess is given in a series of notes at the end of the Exegetical sections on the next few chapters. Pul (2 Kings 15:19) is the first king of Assyria who is mentioned in the Book of Kings, though we know from the monuments and inscriptions that Ahab and Jehu both came in contact with the Assyrian world-monarchy. (See notes 5 and 12 on the Chronological Table, and p. 114 of Part II.) No such king is mentioned in any inscription which has yet been found, and no such one is named in the Canon (See Appendix on the Chronology, § 4). Rawlinson (Five Great Monarchies, II., p. 385 sq.) thinks that the identification with certain known kings of Assyria, which has been attempted, is unsatisfactory, but does not dispose definitely of the question. In the Manual, Pul is not mentioned among the kings of Assyria though he is mentioned in the section on “Judsζa.” Oppert offers a solution of the difficulty. He gives credit to the story of the “first destruction of Nineveh” by the Chaldeans and Medes. According to his identification of the eclipse mentioned in the Canon (App. on the Chron., § 4.), the date of this would be 789. The accession of Tiglath Pileser II. in 747–5 is beyond dispute. The gap between 789 and 747 is filled by inserting Pul, a Chaldean (the name is not Assyrian in form), who is supposed to have remained in Assyria after the destruction of Nineveh as ruler of the country. This, such as it is, is the best conjecture to account for the king mentioned in 2 Kings 15:19. Tiglath Pileser II. (2 Kings 15:29) was, according to Rawlinson, a usurper, according to Lenormant, a descendant of the ancient Assyrian dynasty. His reign dates from 745–4, but he may have been engaged for two or three years before that time in securing the throne. He reigned until 727. He is said in the text to have come into Syria and Samaria in the reign of Pekah. This is the first instance we find of that policy of deportation which the Assyrians and Babylonians afterwards practised so much. It was not generally, or certainly had not been up to this time, the policy of the Assyrians to destroy the nationality of the nations which they subdued. (See bracketed note on 2 Kings 15:19.) They made expeditions against certain nations which they plundered and made tributary, but which they then left undisturbed so long as the tribute was paid. It was only after long vassalage, and repeated revolts and reconquests, that nations were incorporated as provinces in the Assyrian empire. We are now promised from the Assyrian inscriptions a solution of one of the most perplexing discrepancies in the chronological statements of the text, and one which, if correct, at the same time supplies an omission in the historical narrative. It is said that Pekah reigned for 20 years (2 Kings 15:27), but it is stated also that he came to the throne in the 52d of Azariah, who reigned for 52 years. In 2 Kings 17:1, it is said that Hoshea (Pekah’s successor) came to the throne in the 12th of Ahaz. In the mean time Jotham reigned for 16 years. But 1 + 16 + 12 = 29 or 28 years interval for Pekah’s reign. This difficulty has never been solved; it has only been put aside by the assumption of an interregnum after the death of Pekah. Oppert claims to have discovered the explanation in certain statements of the inscriptions. Lenormant adopts his results, but Rawlinson does not. “It is found that the reign of Pekah was interrupted for more than 7 years; that about 742 he was deposed by a second Menahem, probably a son of Pekahiah, who was placed on the throne by Tiglath Pileser II., king of Assyria, to whom he paid tribute as vassal. In 733 a new revolution dethroned him and restored Pekah. The latter, openly hostile to the Assyrians, whose vassal he had dethroned, made an alliance with Rezin, king of Damascus. These two princes, even in the time of Pekah’s first reign, had formed the design of overturning the throne of the House of David, and installing as king in Jerusalem a certain son of Tabeel (his own name is given in the inscription—Ashariah), a creature of their own (see 2 Kings 15:37, where they seem to have formed the plan before Jotham’s death, and Isaiah 7:1-6), in order, probably, to oppose a more compact force to the Assyrians.” (Lenormant, I. 172; cf. also 389.) See note 15 on the Chron. Table. In the last column of the table the chronology of the events of this period is given according to this scheme. In the second alliance and revolt of Rezin and Pekah, in 733, they resumed the plan of attacking Judah. Ahaz called for Tiglath Pileser’s aid (see note after Exeg. on chap. 16), and that monarch marched into Damascus. He put Rezin to death, made Damascus a province, forced many of the chief inhabitants of Syria, northern, and trans-Jordanic Israel to emigrate into Armenia, and, though he left Pekah on the throne, reduced the kingdom of Israel to the district of Samaria. Pekah was present as a vassal at Tiglath Pileser’s court in Damascus in 730. “Towards the end of 730, Muthon, king of Tyre, made an alliance with Pekah, king of Israel, and they both refused their tribute to the Assyrians. Tiglath Pileser did not consider this revolt of sufficient importance to require his own presence. He contented himself with sending an army into Palestine. On the approach of this force a conspiracy was formed in Samaria, headed by Hoshea, who, after killing Pekah, possessed himself of the crown. The Assyrian king confirmed him in this position, and Muthon, finding himself without an ally, attempted no resistance, and quickly submitted to pay his tribute.” (Lenormant, I. 391.)—For continuation see Supp. Note after the Exeg. section on chap. 16—W. G. S.] AND ETHICAL1. This chapter contains rather a succinct review of several reigns than a detailed account of them. Although we have very little specific information in regard to the character and conduct of the kings mentioned, yet we have a statement about each one in respect to his attitude towards the fundamental law, or constitution, of Israel, that is, towards the covenant of Jehovah. This is always stated in a stereotyped formula. Hence we see that this point was the most important one, in the eyes of the author, in regard to any king, and that, in reviewing or estimating his reign, he laid most stress on this inquiry: How did he stand towards the covenant with Jehovah—the constitution of Israel? After the death of Jeroboam II. the decline of the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes went on without interruption. From the reign of Zachariah on, the kingdom was in the progress of dissolution. The author therefore hastens more rapidly over the period of these kings, of whom three, indeed, only reigned for a very short time, and gives only those facts in regard to them which bear either upon the chief question mentioned above, or upon the approaching catastrophe. For everything beyond this he refers to the original authorities. It is true that he follows the same course in regard to Uzziah and Jotham, who belonged, according to the Chronicler, to the number of energetic and efficient rulers, but this is to be explained, first, by the fact that he treats the history of Judah with less detail from the time of the division of the kingdom on, and, secondly, by the character of the activity of these two kings, which was directed almost exclusively to the external and political prosperity of the nation, not to the restoration and complete realization of the theocracy, which was, for this author, the matter of chief interest. From what the Chronicler gives in addition, we cannot see that the religious and moral life took any new ιlan under their rule, or reached any more vigorous development. Both were, it is true, favorable to the worship of Jehovah, but they lacked decided zeal for it, for “the people still sacrificed and offered incense upon the heights; “i.e., they did nothing to abolish a form of worship which could so easily lead to error. The external prosperity which they produced and fostered caused carelessness, luxury, forgetfulness of God, and immorality of every kind, just as the same causes had produced these vices in Israel under Jeroboam II. This we see from the descriptions of the prophets (see Isaiah 2-5). A slow corruption and demoralization was making its way in Judah. It became evident, and bore fruit under the next king, Ahaz. His successor, Hezekiah, was the first to bring the Mosaic constitution into full and efficient working, hence the author narrates in detail the reign of this genuine theocratic king (cf. chaps. 18, 19, and 20). [Ewald (Gesch. III. s. 634) thus describes the state of Judah under Uzziah: At this time the people turned their attention to money-getting “not so much, as had formerly been the case, in particular provinces and districts, but throughout the country, even in Judah, and not so much because a single king like Solomon favored commercial undertakings, as because the love of trade and gain, and the desire for the easy enjoyment of the greatest possible amount of wealth, had taken possession of all classes. All the scorn poured out by the prophets upon this haste to be rich, and all their rebukes of the tendency to cheat, which was one of the fruits of it, no longer availed to restore the ancient simplicity and contentment (Hosea 12:8; Isaiah 2:7). The long and fortunate reign of Uzziah in Judah was very favorable to the growth of this love of gain and enjoyment. The quick interchange of money in the lower classes, and the fierce struggle for gain which gradually absorbed the entire people, stimulated the upper classes to similar attempts. Many were the complaints in Judah of the injustice of the judges, and of the oppression of the helpless (Amos 3:1; Amos 6:1; Hosea 5:10; cf. also Psalms 12). There was a perverse and mocking disposition prevalent which led men to throw doubt upon everything and to raise objections to everything (Amos 6:3; Amos 9:10; Hosea 4:4). It made them treat with harsh contempt the rebukes and exhortations of the best prophets, as we feel distinctly from the whole tone of the writings of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. It led them to desire to know heathen religions, and to introduce foreign divinities, even when the king himself held aloof from any such movement (Amos 2:4; Hosea 4:15; Hosea 6:11; Hosea 12:1; Isaiah 2:8). It became more and more difficult to restrain these tendencies.”] 2. The only incident which is mentioned during the long reign of Uzziah is that God touched him (πβς), and that he was a leper until his death. It follows that this fact must have seemed to the author to be important before all others. Leprosy is not, for him, an accidental disease, but a divine judgment for guilt, as it is often described (Numbers 12:10; Deuteronomy 24:8-9; 2 Samuel 3:29; 2 Kings 5:27). He does not tell more particularly what the sin of the king was, perhaps because it was baleful to the king alone and personally, and not to the whole people, like the sin of Jeroboam. He rests with a simple reference to the original documents. [The author of the Book of Kings regards Uzziah’s sickness as a visitation of Providence, just as he regards any other affliction, or any piece of good fortune, as something sent by God. He does not know of any guilt on the part of Uzziah for which this was a judgment. He simply mentions it as a matter of interest in itself, and in its connection with the fact, otherwise unparalleled in the history of the monarchy (unless Uzziah was made king while his father was a captive), that the king’s son exercised royal functions during his father’s life-time. He does not hint at any belief on his part that this was a proof that the king had been guilty of some sin, and it does not behoove us to draw any such inference.—W. G. S.] On the contrary, the Chronicler (2 Chronicles 26:16 sq.) gives a detailed explanation of the cause of this visitation. According to him the king, who had become arrogant and puffed up by his prosperity and by the power he had attained, was no longer contented with the royal authority, but. sought, as an absolute ruler, to combine with it the highest priestly authority and functions, as the heathen kings did. The institution of the levitical priesthood, however, formed an essential part of the theocratic constitution, and the monarchy, which was, moreover, not established until much later, was not justified in attempting to absorb the priestly office and to overthrow its independence. Uzziah’s guilt, therefore, did not consist in a single illegal action, but in an assault upon the constitution. A principle was at stake, whose violation would have opened a cleft in the theocratic constitution. According to Josephus, Uzziah went into the sanctuary (holy-place), on a great feast-day, before the entire people, ἐνδὺςἱερατικὴνστολήν, and offered incense there upon the golden altar. [Thenius calls attention to the remarkable detail in the account of this incident in Josephus. Josephus says that the earthquake which is mentioned in Amos 1:1, and Zechariah 14:5, as having occurred during Uzziah’s reign, took place at the moment of his quarrel with the priests; that it broke the roof of the temple, and that a ray of sun-light penetrated this, fell upon the head of the king, and produced the leprosy.] No former king had ventured to make such an assault upon the independent authority of the priesthood. Thenius says: “It is most probable that the powerful king desired to reassume the high-priest’s functions which had been executed by David and Solomon,” but this is decidedly false, for there is no hint anywhere that David and Solomon executed priestly functions in the holy place, or in the holy of holies; in fact, there is nothing in the whole Old Testament about any “chief-priestly authority of the kings.” (See notes on the passage 1 Kings 9:25.) It was not, therefore, “any improper self-assertion on the part of the priests against the king” (Ewald). They did right to resist him. On the other hand, it was a usurpation on the part of the king to attempt any such violence upon the rights and functions of the priesthood which God had appointed. It was as much the right as it was the duty of the priests not to allow any such invasion of their prerogatives, and if they resisted the powerful and revered monarch, their courage deserves to be honored. Moreover, it was not they, but Jehovah, who smote the king with leprosy, and he was now compelled to abandon not only the priestly, but also the royal functions. 3. Witsius (Decaphyl. p. 320) says of the five kings who followed Zachariah: non tam reges fuere quam fures, latrones ac tyranni, augusto regum nomine indigni; qui tyrannidem male partam neque melius habitam f�de amistrunt. They all persevered in the sin of Jeroboam, which was, from the very commencement of the kingdom, the germ of its ruin. It is to them that the prophet’s words apply: “They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes and I knew it not” (Hosea 8:4). Only one of them died a natural death and left the succession to his son, who, in his turn, could only retain the sceptre for a short time. Of the others, each one killed his predecessor in order to gain the crown, the authority of which was, in the mean time, shattered by these commotions. One of the most important factors in the history of this period is the conflict with the rising Assyrian monarchy, which came to assist the internal dissension in hurrying the nation to its downfall. Assyria was destined, in the purpose of God, to be the instrument for inflicting the long-threatened judgment. Invited, probably, by the internal weakness and distraction which commenced under Zachariah, Pul made the first invasion during the reign of Menahem; he could only be bribed to withdraw by a heavy tribute. The second Assyrian, Tiglath Pileser, came during Pekah’s reign; he could not be satisfied with money, but carried off a large portion of the inhabitants into captivity. The third, Shalmaneser, came during Hoshea’s reign, captured Samaria, and put an end to the kingdom forever (2 Kings 17:6). [See the bracketed addition at the end of the Exegetical section, above.] 4. Not a single event of the reign of Zachariah, which, in fact, only lasted for six months, is mentioned. It is, however, stated expressly that with him the house of Jehu expired, according to the word of the prophet, 2 Kings 10:30, and not by dying out, but in a violent and bloody way (Hosea 1:4; Amos 7:9). This was also an actual confirmation of the declaration in the fundamental law of Israel, that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5; Exodus 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:9); that is, the sin against the first and chief commandment: “Thou shalt have none other Gods before me, and shalt not make to thyself any graven image” [the first commandment, according to the Lutheran division]. This commandment was the foundation of the covenant with Israel and the centre of the Israelitish nationality. The meaning is, therefore, that the “sin of Jeroboam” will not be permitted by God to run on beyond the third or fourth generation (cf. Menken, Schriften, v. s. 35). No dynasty in Israel which followed the sin of Jeroboam lasted for more than three or four generations. The house of Jeroboam, like that of Baesha and Menahem, perished with its first member; the house of Omri with its third, and the house of Jehu with its fourth. Zimri, Shallum, Pekah, and Hoshea died without successors, while the house of David remained without [long] interruption upon the throne. Although single kings in the line were guilty of apostasy, yet the sin was never continued until the second generation. [On the physical calamities which marked the last years of Jehu’s dynasty, and on the death of Zachariah, see Stanley, II. 400–403. 5. Shallum, the king of a month, had no historical importance further than this, that he murdered and was murdered. Both these facts go to show, what the author desires to show, the state in which the kingdom then was. The history makes special mention of only two events in the history of Menahem, although he reigned for ten years, but these two events are characteristic of him and of the state of the kingdom. The first is his campaign against Tiphsah, the city which would not admit him, that is, would not recognize him as king. We see from this that he was not at all beloved, and that the land was already distracted by parties. The fact that he there perpetrated a great massacre, and did not even spare the infant in its mother’s womb, and so raged against his own countrymen after the manner of the most savage foreign foes, shows that he was a bloody tyrant, who desired from the outset to fill all his opponents with terror. Machiavelli’s words (De principe, 8) apply to him: “He who violently and without just right usurps a crown, must use cruelty, if cruelty becomes necessary, once for all, in order that he may not find it necessary to recommence the use of it daily.” The second fact mentioned in regard to this reign, one which had decisive influence upon the fate of the whole nation, is the contact with Assyria. Menahem pressed from his subjects a large sum of money, in order not only to bribe the Assyrian king to leave his territory, but also to purchase his support and assistance against his subjects themselves. He was the first king of Israel who, in order to hold his people in subjection and establish his own authority, purchased the assistance of a foreign power. “In order to establish his authority, at the price of the independence of his people, he founded his power upon the Assyrian support” (Duncker). It was against this course that the prophet Hosea pronounced his intense denunciations (2 Kings 5:13; 2 Kings 7:11; 2 Kings 10:6). Instead of establishing the kingdom securely by these means, the king only hastened its ruin, for “it has always been thus in the history of the world; the protection of mighty nations has only been the first step towards oppression by them. Such protection has often been, as it was here for Israel, a punishment for those who sought it” (Calw. Bibel). Starke’s observation: “Menahem acts prudently here, not only in purchasing the departure of the invader with money, but also in laying the tribute as a tax upon his wealthy subjects,” entirely misses the historical connection. Ewald says: “Menahem seemed at first to be inspired with better principles, and it seemed as if the nation would take new life, under his rule, after three incapable rulers had been killed in a single month.” The fact of the three kings is asserted on the strength of Zec 11:4-8, where “three shepherds” are mentioned, but it falls at once as destitute of foundation. “Kobolam” is a pure fiction (see Exeget. on 2 Kings 15:10). There is no hint in the text of any better principles at the beginning of Menahem’s reign; his conduct at Tiphsah rather bears testimony to the contrary. Also all the rest which Ewald brings together in regard to Menahem’s reign (Gesch. III. s. 599 sq. [3d Ed. s. 644]) rests upon passages in the prophets Zachariah, Isaiah, and Hosea, which do not contain any history. Winer justly characterizes it as: “a very ill-founded combination.” 6. The author does not mention a single event in the reign of Pekahiah. He only speaks of the end of it, which was significant in two respects. Menahem had bought at a heavy price the assistance of Assyria to confirm his royal authority, and to found a dynasty. As long as he lived he maintained himself on the throne. Hardly had his son succeeded him, however, before the vanity of the Assyrian support became apparent. In the second year it was all over with the new dynasty; it was not destined to last. Pekahiah was murdered, not by foreign foes, but by one of his familiar attendants with the help of a portion of the bodyguard which should have protected him. Such crimes can be perpetrated only where all the bonds of discipline and order, of fidelity and obedience, are loosed; hence the contemporary prophet Hosea says: “The Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land,” &c. (Hosea 4:1-2). 7. In regard to Pekah again, we are not informed of a single act of his. The author tells us, however, that, during his reign, Tiglath-pileser conquered a large portion of the country and carried off the inhabitants. This was the upshot of Pekah’s long reign. This was the great event of the time, in comparison with which all else that occurred was insignificant. The reference to this event is meant to show us that with Pekah’s reign comes the beginning of the end. The war which Pekah carried on against Judah in alliance with Rezin, contributed to the same general result, as is shown in chap. 16 It is at any rate a proof of unusual and irrepressible energy that Pekah, in spite of the internal decay and decline of the kingdom, was able to maintain himself so long upon the throne. He had energy and a soldier’s courage. The manner in which he attained to the throne shows that he was a violent, ambitious, and perfidious man, who cared not for God or divine things. Isaiah never calls him by his name, but only refers to him contemptuously as the “son of Remaliah” (Isaiah 7:4-5; Isaiah 7:9), probably because he was a man of vulgar origin. We can only guess what passages in the prophets apply especially to Pekah, since we have no historical data in the book before us upon which to attach them. The interpretation of Zec 11:16 sq.; 2 Kings 13:7; cf. 2 Kings 10:3, as applying to Pekah, which Ewald proposes so confidently (Propheten des A. B. I. s. 319 sq. Geschichte III. s. 602 [3d ed. s. 648]), is arbitrary and forced. Schmieder’s opinion (in Von Gerlach’s Bibelwerk) that Hosea 7:4-7 refers to Pekah’s conspiracy against Pekahiah, although it is much more probable than Ewald’s notion mentioned above, is not by any means above serious doubts. 8. In the history of king Jotham of Judah no details are given aside from the regular data, except that he built the upper gate of the temple (on the north side of the outer court), and that, about the end of his reign, the attacks of Rezin and Pekah upon Judah began. The first of these has direct reference to the statement that the people still sacrificed on the high places, or, as the Chronicler expresses it, that “the people did yet corruptly” (2 Chronicles 27:2). In order to put a stop to this “corruption,” to which the people was so much accustomed, Jotham “built” the gate, through which the sacrifices were brought in, anew; he desired thereby to induce the people to bring their sacrifices hither and not to the forbidden “high places.” This was at least an act inspired by loyalty to the theocracy. This king thereby confessed himself a servant of Jehovah, and the act is therefore especially mentioned. The second fact recorded had, as appears in chap. 16, more important consequences for Judah than anything else which happened during Jotham’s reign. Hence it deserved to be especially mentioned. It was not so much a chastisement for Jotham himself as for the people, who, under the prosperous reigns of Uzziah and Jotham, still continued to act “corruptly,” and inclined strongly to idolatry. AND 2 Kings 15:1-7. (Compare 2 Chronicles 16) King Uzziah. (a) His prosperous reign of 50 years. (b) His unfortunate end.—It is the greatest blessing for a nation, when a God-fearing king lives long to rule over it. Hence we pray for those in authority. 2 Kings 15:4. How hard it is to abolish and do away with bad customs which have been handed down from generation to generation! 2 Kings 15:5. Uzziah’s guilt and punishment. Starke: We should not be over-bold to undertake duties which do not devolve upon us. He who covets more than he has any right to have loses even what he has.—Let each one remain in his own calling to which he is called, and not invade the functions of another calling, even if he has strength and opportunity to do so. We cannot break over the bounds which God has set without incurring punishment.—Calw. Bibel: This is a warning example for those who behave as if they are capable of being all in all, whereas each one has his own gifts and his own calling. The might of kings does not reach into the sanctuary.—Think no man blessed until thou hast seen his end. The most fortunate, rich, and mighty king learned that “all flesh is grass,” and that “the world passeth away,” &c., 1 John 2:17.—Pfaff. Bibel: God chastises often the great in this world with heavy misfortunes, in order to remind them of their own nothingness, and to humble them.—Separation from the world and from the current of affairs, and residence in solitude, may become a great blessing to him who recognizes in them a divine dispensation.—Cramer: Children must take care of their sick and weak and aged parents; must take their places as far as they can, and honor them in word and deed (Sir 3:9; Sir 3:14). [The history of king Uzziah presents warning and instructive lessons especially for a time of prosperity, when greed of gain, love of luxury and ease, respect for wealth, with all the attendant vices of prosperity, are the characteristics of society. See the bracketed addition to Hist. § 1.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 15:8-31. See Historical and Ethical. The last kings of the northern kingdom, or the monarchy in its decay, (a) The monarchy as the highest civil authority is ordained by God (Proverbs 8:16); it is God’s ordinance. If it does not consider itself as such it cannot endure. The last kings of Israel were not chosen and instituted by God, nor even by the people; they raised themselves by force through robbery and murder (Hosea 8:4). They ruled, not by the grace of God, but by His wrath (Hosea 13:11). The monarchy in Israel had lost its foothold on the divine ordinance. All its kings persevered in the sin of Jeroboam, therefore it had no endurance. No dynasty endured beyond the third or fourth generation, some only to the second, the last ones not even to the first; while the house of David, in Judah, did not perish in spite of storms. Where one dynasty overthrows another, there the true, divinely instituted monarchy comes to an end, and people and kingdom perish with it. (b) The monarchy is the “minister of God to them for good” (Romans 13:4); it is its calling to work out the welfare of the people. The last kings of Israel did not care for this, they only cared for power and dominion. Hence the people and the kingdom sank continually lower and lower. When kings only rule for their own sakes and not for the sake of their people, then they cease to be shepherds of their people (Jeremiah 23:1-4), and the monarchy decays (Proverbs 20:28; Proverbs 25:5). Rulers who seized power by force and violence, have never been the deliverers and protectors of their people, but rather tyrants, who have led it down to its ruin. “In one demagogue,” says Luther, “there are hidden ten tyrants.”—As is the master, so is the servant; as is the head, so are the members. A succession of rulers, who attained to the throne by conspiracy, revolt, perjury, and murder, is the surest sign, not only that there is something rotten in the State, but also that there is nothing sound in the nation, from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head (Isaiah 1:6; Hosea 4:1 sq.). The corruption in Israel extended, in the first place, from the head downwards. Jeroboam made Israel to sin. Then, however, it came from below upwards. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ B.—The Reign of Ahaz in Judah2 Kings 16:1-20. (2 Chronicles 28) 1In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah, Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign [became king]. 2Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God, like David his father. 3But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel. 4And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree. 5Then Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel, came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him 6[prevail]. At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered [won] Elath to [for] Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt [dwell] there unto this day. 7So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me. 8And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria. 9And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for [and] the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin. 10And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus: and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion [pattern] of the altar, and the pattern [plan] of it, according to all the workmanship thereof. 11And Urijah the priest built an altar according to all that king Ahaz had sent from Damascus: so Urijah the priest made it against king Ahaz came from Damascus. 12And when the king was come from Damascus, the king saw the altar: and the king approached to the altar, and offered thereon [went up upon it]. 13And he burnt his burnt offering and his meat offering, and poured his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings, upon the altar. 14And he brought also the brazen altar, which was before the Lord, from the forefront of the honse, from between the [new] altar and the house of the Lord, and put it on the north side of the altar. 15And king Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest, saying, Upon the great altar burn the morning burnt offering, and the evening meat offering, and the king’s burnt sacrifice, and his meat offering, with the burnt offering of all the people of the land, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings; and sprinkle upon it all the blood of the burnt offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice: and [as for] the brazen altar shall be for me to inquire by [I will consider further]. 16Thus did Urijah the priest, according to all that king Ahaz commanded. 17And king Ahaz cut off the borders of the bases, and removed the laver from off them; and took down the sea from off the brazen oxen that were under it, 18and put it upon a pavement [structure] of stones. And [he altered] the covert [covered way] for the sabbath that they had built in the house, and the king’s entry without, turned he from [omit turned he from.—Insert in] the house of the Lord [,] for [fear of] the king of Assyria. 19Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 20And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead. AND 2 Kings 16:1. Ahaz became king, &c. On the year of Ahaz’s accession see the chronological discussion after chap. 17 2 Kings 16:2. If Ahaz was 20 years old at his accession and reigned 16 years, so that he was 36 years old when he died, then he must have begotten his son Hezekiah in the tenth year of his age, for Hezekiah, according to 2 Kings 18:2, ascended the throne in his 25th year. This would not be an impossibility, for even yet marriages occur in the East between boys of 10 and girls of 8 years (see the instances quoted by Keil in his Comment. on the verse). It is, however, very improbable, and there is no similar instance in Scripture. It is very likely, therefore, that the reading “twenty-five” instead of twenty, which is presented by some MSS., by the Vatican MS. of the Sept., as well as by the Syriac and Arabic translations on 2 Chronicles 28:1, is the original and correct one (Ewald, Thenius, and Keil). 2 Kings 16:3. But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel. This cannot mean that he transplanted the Israelitish worship of the calves into Judah, for the relation between Judah and Israel had become hostile even in the last years of his father Jotham (2 Kings 15:37). Moreover, there is not a hint of that form of worship in the history of Judah. The words only mean, generally, that Ahaz forsook the covenant of Israel as the Israelitish kings had done. The parallel passage 2 Chronicles 28:2-3 adds directly the words: “And made also molten images for Baalim. Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom.” This sentence “is evidently taken from the original authority” (Thenius). Probably it was omitted by the author of the Book of Kings because it seemed to him to be implied in the statement already made that he “walked in the way of the kings of Israel,” for these had had images of Baal (1 Kings 16:32; 2 Kings 3:2; 2 Kings 10:26 sq.). He desired to go on at once to the things which this king had done other than what had been done by the kings of Israel. We have not, therefore, to understand, by the images of Baalim, calf-images like those of Jeroboam (Keil), but idol-images. On the valley of Hinnom see notes on 2 Kings 23:10.—Yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, viz., μְ ?ξֹ ?μֶ ?κְ. This must be supplied, as we see, from 2 Kings 23:10; Leviticus 18:21; Jeremiah 19:5. The meaning of the phrase δֶ ?ςֱ ?αִ ?ιψαָּ ?ΰֵ ?ωׁ is distinctly stated in Numbers 31:23. It has accordingly been supposed by some that, where αֵּ ?ο or αָּ ?πִ ?ιν is the object, and not gold or silver, it refers to a literal passage through fire, and that it was an act of lustration or purification (Theodoret, Grotius, Spencer, and others). It is clear, however, from 2 Chronicles 28:3, where εַ ?ιַּ ?αְ ?ςֵ ?ψ stands for it, that it is not a simple passage through, but a burning up. The same is clear from 2 Kings 17:31 : Deuteronomy 12:31; Jeremiah 19:5; Ezekiel 16:20 sq.; 2 Kings 23:37. Josephus declares plainly of Ahaz: καὶ ἴδιονὡλοκαύτωσεπαῖδα (Cf. Gesen. Thesaurus, II, p. 985). Another question arises, however, viz., whether we must understand that the children were burned alive, or that they were killed and then burned. The rabbis assert the former (see the passages quoted from Jarchi in Winer’s R.-W.-B. II., s. 101), but their authority is overturned by other and better testimony. In Ezekiel 16:20 it is said: “Thou tookest thy sons and thy daughters, which thou hadst borne to me, and slewest them (εַ ?ϊִּ ?ζְ ?αָּ ?ηִ ?ιν) [as a sacrifice] to them [i.e., to the false gods] μֶ ?ΰֱ ?λεֹ ?μ [i.e., to consume them]. Was thy whoredom too slight a thing that thou slowest (εַ ?ϊִּ ?ωְׁ ?ηֲ ?θִ ?ι) my sons, and gavest them away αְּ ?δַ ?ςֲ ?αִ ?ιψΰεֹ ?ϊָ ?ν”—[i.e., in that thou causedst them to go through, or, to be burned up in, the fire]? Psalms 106:37 sq. speaks only of the slaughter of children in sacrifice to idols, not of burning them: “And they slew their sons and daughters in sacrifice (εַ ?ιִּ ?ζְ ?αְּ ?ηεּ) to false gods, and shed innocent blood—blood of their sons and daughters whom they sacrificed (ζִ ?αְּ ?ηεּ) to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by the shedding of blood (αַּ ?γָּ ?ξִ ?ιν).” Diodorus Siculus (2 Kings 20:12) describes the brazen statue of Kronos (Moloch) with its outstretched arms, glowing hot from an internal fire, but he does not say that the children were laid living upon them. Eusebius (Prζp. Evang. 2 Kings 4:16) states in regard to the human sacrifices which were offered at Salamis that they were first killed by the priest with a spear and then burned upon the pile. Slaying, and cutting in pieces, and shedding blood, are essentials in sacrifice, so that ζαη, i.e., to slaughter, means, to sacrifice. We have certainly to understand, therefore, in the case of the child-sacrifices, that they were killed before they were burned (Hδvernick, Comm. όber Ezech. s. 237 sq.). Such seems to have been the case also in the incident mentioned in 2 Kings 3:27. The only remaining question is this: if the procedure was the same in the case of the child-sacrifices as in the ordinary burnt offerings, why do we find the expression δςαιψαΰωׁ used only of the former? The probable explanation is that the expression only referred originally to a passage through the fire without consumption, a sort of fire-baptism, as purifications by fire were practised by various peoples, and that it was not connected with human sacrifice. Not until a later time did this become corrupted into a real sacrifice and burning, but the original expression was retained and became general (see Keil on Leviticus 18:21). It may be, too, as Witsius (Miscell. p. 616) suggests, that the practice was not always and everywhere the same, but both living and dead children were burned, and this expression was used in both cases. [This is the point in the history of the Israelites at which they became acquainted with the Assyrio-Chaldean idolatry. The gods Baal and Ashtaroth became known to them from the Ph�nicians by the marriage of Jezebel with Ahab. That that was the point of contact between the Jehovah-worship and the Baal-worship s proved by the fact that this pair (Baal and Ashtaroth) are the ones whom the Israelites worshipped, and that that was the couplet which was worshipped at Sidon (see note on 2 Kings 17:17). Now, however, Pekah and Ahaz came into close intimacy with the Assyrians, and learned from them the astral conception of the same heathen religion. Ashtaroth always had sidereal character, but her worship, so far as it was introduced into Israel, seems to have been confined rather to its voluptuous rites. Ahaz introduced the astral worship into Judah. In order to understand the influence of these heathen religious conceptions on Judah, and the origin of the rite of passing through the fire, it is necessary to take a somewhat comprehensive view of these heathen religious conceptions. Here follows a description of the cultus. On the astral ideas see note on 2 Kings 17:17. The religious conceptions of the nations of Western Asia were all closely related to each other. The deity was conceived of as one, simple, formless, and universal, but in a pantheistic sense. It has often been observed that behind the polytheism of these nations (and of Egypt also) there was an idea of one sole and original deity, and it has been inferred that there was a pure and true monotheistic idea at the root, and that the polytheism was only popular. In fact, however, the corruption of these heathen religions was rooted in the pantheistic conception of this original divine essence. Then his attributes were deified (hence the plural Baalim), and not only his good attributes but also his destructive and profane and base attributes. Hence, by a legitimate deduction, all the cruel and licentious rites of pretended religion. In different countries the chief and original God took different names according to the especial point of view from which he was regarded. The Assyrians called him Asshur, or, in a still more pantheistic conception, Ilu; and among the Canaanites he was called El as the “Mighty One,” the first and simplest conception of God as strength. He was also very widely named Baal (Babylonian Bel [Merodach]), as the “Lord;” also Yaoh (Hebr. Yahvah [Jehovah]), as the “Eternal,” the pure conception of being or existence. The Aramζans named him Hadad or Hadar, “The Only One;” the Ammonites, Moloch, the “King;” the Moabites, Chemosh, the “Governor.” Then he received different names according to his attributes, and was worshipped by each nation under the name of the attribute which they kept most in mind. As the deity which presided over generation he was Thammuz or Adon (Hebr. Adonay; Greek, Adonis); as protector and preserver he was Chon; as destroyer he was Moloch; as “presiding over the decomposition of those destroyed beings whence new life was again to spring,” he was Zebub (Beelzebub). Hence, probably, Baal-zebub was the god of restoration to health from dangerous sickness. See 2 Kings 1:2. In this last sense probably the main idea was that of resurrection or life from death. The flies on carrion seemed to spring to life out of it. The Egyptian beetle probably embodies the same idea. Moloch was therefore the supreme deity in his attribute of destroyer. Fire, lightning, war, pestilence, and so on, represented him. He was worshipped under this form when his appetite for devouring and destroying was being satiated. Hence his rites consisted in sacrifices of things cast into the fire. Those who robbed themselves of something which they cast into the fire appeased the god and averted the assaults which, were to be apprehended from him if his appetite for destruction was not satisfied. The parents who thus sacrificed their children might hope that this frightful sacrifice would save them from further or other losses. When the king of Moab found the fight going against him he offered his son to Chemosh, that the god, appeased by this, might not push on the destruction of war. No doubt he considered that this sacrifice was successful when the horrified Israelites desisted from the war (2 Kings 3). So far as we can judge, the children were cast alive into the flames.—The religion of Israel differed from these heathen religions in that its supreme deity was personal, spiritual, and holy, and that the Israelites refrained from deifying his attributes as emanations or hypostases of himself.—W. G. S.] Instead of αְּ ?πεֹ in 2 Kings 16:3 and 2 Kings 21:6, the Chronicler (2 Chronicles 28:3 and 2 Chronicles 33:6) has the plural αָּ ?πָ ?ιε. Thenius regards this as a contradiction, or, at least, as an exaggeration of the passage before us, but the plural stands here, as it often does (Matthew 9:8; Matthew 2:20; Gesen. Lehrgeb. s. 664 sq.), rhetorically, in order to say, in general, that Ahaz and Manasseh had incurred the guilt of child-sacrifice. “The pure, abstract idea of child-sacrifice, apart from any idea of number, is expressed by the plural” (Bertheau, Keil). In like manner, Cicero (De Prov. Cons. xiv. 35): jucundissimi liberi, although Cζsar had only a single daughter (cf. also Pro Lege Manil. 12). On 2 Kings 16:4 cf. 1 Kings 14:23. The sense is: The centralization of the worship of God, such as the law prescribed, came to an end; the very contrary came to pass. Thenius seizes upon the fact that we have αְּ before αָּ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ, instead of ςִ ?μ, which we find before δַ ?βְּ ?αָ ?ςεֹ ?ϊ, as a support for his interpretation of the former word as “grove” or “sacred enclosure” (see Exeg. on 1 Kings 2:2-3). It stands here, as it often does, for αֵּ ?ιϊδַ ?αָּ ?ξָ ?δ, Ahaz offered incense in the sacred places on the tops of the mountains and on the hills, i.e., on heights where there was no αּ ?ιϊ but only an altar. 2 Kings 16:5. Then Rezin, king of Syria. See on this and the following verse: Caspari, Ueber den Syrisch-ephraimitischen Krieg unter Jotham und Ahaz. Christiania, 1849. After the author has described the reign of Ahaz in its broad and general features (2 Kings 16:1-4), the detailed account of the particular incidents begins in 2 Kings 16:5. ΰζ only means, therefore, after Ahaz had succeeded to the throne. The attacks began under Jotham (2 Kings 15:31), but there had not yet been any formal and united expedition. [The first attempt was frustrated by the attack of Tiglath Pileser on Damascus and Samaria. See Supp. Note, p. 161. No real attack was made until Ahaz was on the throne. The object was, according to Isaiah 7:6, to conquer Judah and to set upon the throne a person called “the son of Tabeel,” of whom we know nothing further. [Mention of this confederation occurs in the Assyrian inscriptions. We learn there that the name of this “son of Tabeel” was Ashariah.] Whether “they hoped thereby to be able to oppose larger means and stronger force to the aggressions of the Assyrian empire” (Thenius), is a matter for mere supposition. [This supposition is now very strongly confirmed.] They came as far as Jerusalem, which they besieged (εַ ?ιָּ ?φֻ ?ψεּ means besiege, as it does in 2 Samuel 20:15; Jeremiah 21:4; Jeremiah 39:1; Ezekiel 4:3, and not merely: “they pressed forward towards it”), but were not able to take it, for the city had been strongly fortified on all sides by Uzziah and Jotham (2 Chronicles 26:9; 2 Chronicles 27:3), and, in the providence of God, it was otherwise decreed (Isaiah 7:7). 2 Kings 16:6. At that time Rezin won Elath for Syria, &c. αָּ ?ςֵ ?ϊδַ ?δִ ?ιΰ does not mean “thereupon” or “afterwards,” but designates in general the time of the Syriac-ephraimitic war against Judah. 2 Kings 16:6 is a sort of parenthesis, so that 2 Kings 16:7 is the real continuation of 2 Kings 16:5. The author desires to record the danger which threatened Jerusalem, for this was the chief event in this war, and, besides this, to record the fact that Judah, during this reign, lost the city which was its most important seat of commerce, and one of the chief sources of the prosperity of the country (cf. on Elath, notes on 1 Kings 9:26 and 2 Kings 14:22). 2 Kings 16:7 then joins on to 2 Kings 16:5, for Ahaz sent to Tiglath Pileser, not on account of the loss of Elath, but on account of his endangered capital, with which the whole kingdom must stand or fall. Many expositors, both ancient and recent, have desired to change μַ ?ΰֲ ?ψָ ?ν to μֶ ?ΰֱ ?γεֹ ?ν, because Elath never belonged to Syria, and therefore could not be “restored” to it. But this conjecture is not supported by a single manuscript or ancient version, and, as Winer and Keil observe, δֵ ?ωִׁ ?ια does not necessarily imply the idea of “back again.” It means, in general, to turn away from something to something else (Isaiah 1:25, and Knobel’s note thereon; Psalms 81:14; Amos 1:8; Daniel 11:18). It means, therefore, that Rezin took away Elath from Judah, to which it had previously belonged, and joined it to Syria. The case is similar with the word εַ ?ΰֲ ?ψεֹ ?ξִ ?ιν, for which the keri offers εΰγεξιν, the Sept., ’Ιδουμαῖοι, and the Vulg., Idum�i, but evidently incorrectly. The Edomites did not need to come to Elath and to settle there; they had always lived in this city, which lay in their own country, and had remained there even when it was in the hands of the Jews. What is asserted, however, is, that Rezin expelled the Jews and brought thither Syrians, who settled there for purposes of trade, and remained there “until this day,” i. e., at the time that these books were written the Syrian commercial colony was yet in Elath. Yet one question further suggests itself here, viz., whether Rezin took Elath before or after the attack which he and Pekah made upon Jerusalem. The answer to this question depends upon another one: What is the relation between the record before us and that in the parallel passage in Chronicles? In the latter there is no mention of the expedition against Elath, nor of the siege of Jerusalem. On the other hand, it is recorded that Jehovah gave Ahaz into the hand of the king of Syria, who defeated him, and took away many captives to Damascus; likewise into the hand of the king of Israel, who, in a great battle, won a great victory over him (2 Kings 16:5-6). This narrative the rationalistic school formerly regarded as an invention and unworthy of belief (Gesenius, De Wette, Gramberg), but that view has been abandoned even by this school. Thenius, amongst others, regards the narrative as unquestionably historical, and as a supplement to the record before us. Nevertheless there is some disagreement as to whether the campaign described in Chronicles is the same one which is described here. Caspari has examined this question very carefully in the work mentioned above; we, therefore, refer in general to that work and here add only what follows. Those, like Vitringa, Movers, Hδvernick, and others, who adopt the hypothesis of two sucessive expeditions, appeal for their proof especially to Isaiah 7:1-9. At the commencement of the war against Judah, when it is made known to the house of David that the Syrians are already in Ephraim, the prophet announces to Ahaz the complete failure of the enterprise of the two kings. As, however, according to the account in Chronicles, Ahaz was defeated by each of these kings, it is inferred that that must have taken place in a different expedition from the one here referred to, and that it took place before the latter; furthermore, that the capture of Elath took place during the second expedition and after the siege of Jerusalem, since it is narrated in the history after that event (2 Kings 16:6). It is certain that the two battles mentioned in 2 Chronicles 28:5-6, must have taken place before the siege of Jerusalem, but it does not follow that they occurred in an earlier expedition. As it was the intention of Rezin and Pekah to put an end to the kingdom of Judah and to put “the son of Tabeel” (probably a Syrian general) upon the throne, it is not by any means to be supposed that they would have abandoned the attempt after gaining two victories over Ahaz, and then would have undertaken a new expedition in order to besiege Jerusalem. On the contrary, it is plain that they would try, after winning two victories, to complete their enterprise by taking Jerusalem. The words in Isaiah 7:2, ςַ ?μΞΰֶ ?τְ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?νπָ ?ηָ ?δΰֲ ?ψָ ?ν do not mean, as they are often translated: “The Aramζans are encamped in Ephraim” (Bunsen), nor: “The Syrians stand [are under arms] in Ephraim” (De Wette), so that it would follow, that Rezin first advanced into Ephraim at the outbreak of the war, in order to advance, in conjunction with Pekah, against Jerusalem. The phrase must be explained as it is in the Chaldee paraphrase: “The king of Syria has joined himself (ΰϊηαψ, societatem iniit) with (ςν) the king Israel.” So the Sept. translate: συνεφώνησεν ’Αρὰμπρὸςτὸν ’Εφραίμ. “The verb πεδ with ςμ is never used of an army encamping, and it does not seem fitting to take ΰτψιν as referring to the country, and ΰψν as referring to the people” (Hengstenberg). πεη means, to lie down to rest, and it expresses, when it is used as it is here of a person who rests upon or over (ςμ) another, a being with or by, a being in connection with him (cf. Numbers 11:25-26; Isaiah 11:2; Psalms 125:3). [An examination of these passages will show that they do not justify any such rendering of πεηςμ as, to be in alliance with. They contain “the spirit rests upon” or some similar sense of πεηςμ, which is a different sense of “rest” and a different sense of “upon” from the one here to be proved. Hengstenberg’s objection, that Aram is used of the people and Ephraim of the territory, has force, but the most fair rendering of the words is: “Aram is encamped in Ephraim” (Bunsen, Ewald). πεη is not indeed the technical word for the encamping of an army, but it is used for special force. They have settled down, are stationed, are resting and recruiting, but when an army does this it encamps.—W. G. S.] What made Ahaz and his people tremble, as the trees of the forest tremble before the wind, was, not the fact that Syria was in camp in Ephraim, but the fact that the kings of Syria and Israel had joined forces against Judah. The prophet promised that this enterprise should not succeed, and his promise was fulfilled. The supposition that Rezin began the war by taking up a position in the land of Ephraim is, therefore, totally unfounded. Moreover, it was not necessary for him, in order to make war upon Jerusalem, to go through Ephraim. He could just as well advance on the other side of the Jordan, and this he no doubt did. As for the capture of Elath, 2 Kings 16:6 of the chapter before us does not force us to the assumption that it took place before the siege of Jerusalem, for, as we have said above, 2 Kings 16:6 is a parenthesis and 2 Kings 16:7 follows 2 Kings 16:5. It is also difficult to believe that Rezin gave up the siege, because Jerusalem could not be taken (2 Kings 16:5). and then, because he “was unwilling that the expedition should have been made entirely in vain” (Thenius), that he made a long march around the southern end of the Dead Sea in order to return home. After Ahaz had called upon Tiglath Pileser for aid, and the latter was actually advancing against Syria, it is impossible that Rezin can have undertaken this long march; he must have hastened home by the most direct route. In view of all this we come to the following conception of the course of the events. Rezin made an alliance with Pekah and advanced on the east side of the Jordan and won a great victory over Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28:5). At the same time, on this side the Jordan, Pekah invaded Judah, and also inflicted a severe defeat on Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28:6). As a consequence of his victory Rezin marched on southward to Edom, where he put an end to the hated supremacy of Judah over Edom, and captured Elath, an important source of commercial prosperity to Judah (2 Kings 16:6). From thence he moved northwards on this side of the Dead Sea and made a junction with Pekah, who had in the mean time been devastating the country, in order, with him, to make a united attack upon Jerusalem, and so to come to the end of his entire undertaking, namely, to the overthrow of the kingdom of Judah and of the dynasty of David. [It may hardly be worth while to balance conjectures where the basis of testimony on which to build them is so slight. The above construction is open to considerable objection. If a king set out, in alliance with another, against Judah, would it not be strange that he should march through Edom to Elath and then up to Jerusalem before joining his ally? What is more, it is very remarkable that Isaiah, when he prophesies deliverance to Ahaz, makes no reference to two defeats which the king is supposed to have suffered already. We expect a sentence in this form: although thou hast been defeated, yet, &c. The king looks for aid to Assyria. The prophet rebukes this. He evidently expects that the physical form of the deliverance will be something else than Tiglath Pileser’s advance. It is more consistent to suppose that the city was found too strong, that the two kings commenced to devastate the country, that Ahaz was twice defeated when he sallied out to try to restrain them, or before he was shut up in the city, and that Rezin pushed forward as far as Elath. Probably it was not until they had made some progress in plundering the country that they heard that Tiglath Pileser was advancing. The information derived from the Assyrian inscriptions strongly sustains this view. Rezin and Pekah revolted in 734–3. Haste was necessary above all things. It was deemed necessary to conquer Judah and force it into the confederated revolt. Hence the news comes suddenly to Ahaz in this startling form: The Syrians are in Ephraim. Before the end of 731 the war was all over and Tiglath Pileser held his court in Damascus. (See Supp. Note at the end of this section.) The whole campaign in Judah was therefore very brief. There was no time for a siege. The two “battles” were fought in the open country, and the “captives” were taken thence, and the long expedition to Elath was undertaken in order to bring the strongest possible pressure to bear on Ahaz to force him to join the revolt, next to the capture of his capital.—W. G. S.] As the Edomites and Philistines had also invaded Judah (2 Chronicles 28:17 sq.), Ahaz, pressed on every side, turned to Assyria for help in spite of the warnings and promises of Isaiah (2 Kings 7:1 sq.). This induced Rezin to desist from his advance and to hurry home. There he was defeated and slain by Tiglath Pileser.—It is scarcely possible to combine the two narratives in any other than this simple and direct way. Keil also places the capture of Elath before the siege of Jerusalem, but leaves it undecided whether Rezin advanced northwards from Elath, against Jerusalem, or whether, after his victory over Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28:5), “he sent a portion of his army into Idumea to detach that country from Judah, while he, in conjunction with Pekah, led the rest of the army against Jerusalem.” Against this view arises the objection that 2 Kings 16:6 makes no mention of a detachment sent into Idumea, but says that Rezin himself marched thither and drove the Jews out of Elath. 2 Kings 16:7. Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath Pileser. He did not take this step as soon as hostilities commenced, but, as has already been said, when he saw himself hard pressed. He did not heed the prophet’s warning and counsel Isaiah 7:4); on the contrary, by the words: thy servant and thy son, he placed himself in servitude to the king of Assyria as well as under his protection. He sent the presents of gold and silver (2 Kings 16:8) after the allied armies had withdrawn from Jerusalem, and Damascus had been taken (2 Kings 16:9). Tiglath Pileser took the captured inhabitants of Damascus to Kir. By this we have not to understand, as the ancient Expositors did, the Median city Κουρήνα or Καρίνη, but the country around the river Kur (Κῦρος, Κύῤῥος), which flows through the northern part of Iberia, the modern Georgia, into the Caspian sea (Isaiah 22:6 [cf. also Amos 1:3-5]). “Tiglath Pileser transferred the inhabitants of Damascus to the most remote portion—in the extreme north—of his dominions, and yet to the place from which their ancestors had originally migrated (Amos 9:7).” (Thenius). After the subjugation of Syria, Tiglath Pileser advanced against Israel, and accomplished what is recorded in 2 Kings 15:29. It may be that Pekah submitted at once to the approaching enemy and thereby averted from himself the fate of Rezin. [See Supp. Note, p. 161.—The statement 2 Chronicles 28:20 sq., according to which Tiglath Pileser marched against Ahaz, and besieged him but did not overcome him, is discussed in detail by Caspari (work above cited, ss. 56–60). He strives to reconcile it to the statements of the passage before us, but does not in all respects succeed. So much is certain; Ahaz, in spite of all his gifts to Tiglath Pileser, did not find in him a true helper and friend; on the contrary, he was harshly treated by him: “It did him no good.” [The meaning of 2 Chronicles 28:20 seems to be more correctly given in the English translation: “He came unto him (not against him), and distressed him (not necessarily besieged him), and strengthened him not.”] 2 Kings 16:10. And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath Pileser, i.e., in order to testify to his gratitude towards him for his deliverance, and at the same time to secure the continued favor of the king of Assyria. The latter must, therefore, have remained at Damascus for some time. Perhaps Ahaz himself brought the presents which are mentioned in 2 Kings 16:8. While he was at Damascus he saw an altar which pleased him so much that he sent orders to Urijah the priest to make one like it. This Urijah can hardly be the same one who is mentioned in Isaiah 8:2. [We should unhesitatingly infer that these two were the same individual, if it were not for the improbability that a man, who would build and introduce into the temple a new altar built on a heathen model, should be called by a prophet a “faithful” witness. The solution may be that the prophet took the priest as a faithful witness on account of his official position solely. The priest seemed the most fit and proper witness, however much the prophet may have had to find fault with (as to which he tells us nothing one way or the other) in his administration of his office.—W. G. S.] It was undoubtedly an altar consecrated to an Assyrian deity which Ahaz saw, but he desired to have one like it for the service of Jehovah (2 Kings 16:15). γְּ ?ξεּ ?ϊ has a general signification: shape, image; ϊַּ ?αְ ?πִ ?ιϊ designated more particularly the model; and ξַ ?ςֲ ?ωֶׂ ?δ the sort of workmanship, decoration, &c.—In 2 Kings 16:12, εַ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?μςָ ?μָ ?ιε is not to be translated: “and he sacrificed upon it” (Luther, De Wette, and others), but: “and he ascended upon it.” See 1 Kings 12:32-33. It does not follow from this, however, that “Ahaz was not willing to give up the royal prerogative of exercising the high-priestly office upon occasion” (Thenius). The words mean simply that this was his sacrifice, namely, the one which he offered for his fortunate return from Damascus. He led the way by his own example. We have not to understand that he usurped any priestly functions. It is no more intended to assert in 2 Kings 16:13 that he himself sprinkled the sacrificial blood, than it is in 2 Kings 16:14, that he, with his own hand, removed the altar. [The translation: “He went up upon it,” is justly preferred by Bδhr, but it does not remove the difficulty about the king’s share in the sacrifice. Why did he go up upon the altar, if not to perform the rites himself? There is no other evidence at all that any one but the person officiating at the sacrifice went up upon the altar. Furthermore, 2 Kings 16:13 is not a case of the ultimate agent being said to do what others do by his command. The fact that the king could sacrifice unrebuked by the priest is not any more astonishing than that the priest should make an altar on a heathen pattern, and put it in the place of the one built by Solomon. Both incidents belong to the picture of this reign.—W. G. S.] The thank-offering was the chief thing (2 Kings 16:13), but it was preceded by a burnt-offering as usual (Symbol, d. Mos. Kult. II. s. 362, 423, 435). 2 Chronicles 28:23 does not contradict the passage before us. It does not refer to the new altar and the sacrifice which was offered upon it, but to the sacrifices which Ahaz offered elsewhere (cf. 2 Kings 16:4). 2 Kings 16:14-15. And he brought also the brazen altar, &c. εַ ?ιַּ ?χְ ?ψֵּ ?α cannot mean: “he removed,” “Er that weg” (Luther), nor: he moved away; “Er rόckte hinweg,” but: he brought nearer, he moved closer up to. [The sense of “away from” is, of course, in ξֵ ?ΰֵ ?ϊ. The first meaning of εַ ?ιַּ ?χְ ?ψֵ ?α is certainly: “he brought nearer,” but as it is not clear what it was brought nearer to, the word seems to have lost this force and to mean simply, he moved. Bδhr translates: “But the brazen altar (i.e., the altar of burnt-offering), which was before Jehovah (i.e., which was immediately before the house of Jehovah), he moved nearer, away from (the place) before the house (i.e., away from the point) between the (new) altar and the house of Jehovah, and he put it by the side of the new altar towards the north.” It is not clear what it was nearer to.—W. G. S.] The altar of burnt-offering was called the “brazen” altar, in contradistinction from the golden altar of incense in the interior of the temple. It stood in the middle of the court of the priests in front of the temple-building. Urijah had placed the new altar in front of this, but Ahaz ordered the brazen altar to be moved away from its former position to the north side of the new one. This he did evidently because the position which was nearer to the dwelling-place of the divinity seemed to be more holy, and he did not wish that the old altar should be regarded as superior in honor or sacredness to the new one. As they were now upon the same line, they were, in so far, equal; while the new one, being in the middle, was, if anything, superior. In 2 Kings 16:15 the new altar is called δַ ?βָּ ?ψεֹ ?μ; hardly because “it was somewhat larger than Solomon’s altar” (Keil), for the latter was very large, twenty cubits long and wide and ten cubits high (2 Chronicles 4:1). It seems better, with Thenius, “to understand it as in λֹּ ?δֵ ?οδַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ and to translate: ‘the chief altar.’ ” According to Ahaz’s orders, all the offerings were now to be made upon the new altar; the regular morning and evening sacrifices, and the special ones of particular individuals, whether the king or others. He did not, therefore, forbid the worship of Jehovah—he did not dare to do that—but nevertheless this worship was to be celebrated only upon an altar imitated from one which belonged to the heathen.—The morning burnt-offering and the evening meat-offering. “It might seem from this that there was no meat offering in the morning and no burnt-offering in the evening, which would be contradictory to Exodus 29:38-42 and Numbers 28:3-8. But, as no burnt-offering was brought without a meat-offering (Numbers 7:87; Numbers 15:2-12), the latter is assumed as a matter of course in the morning offering; and, as the burnt-offering was to burn throughout the whole night (Leviticus 6:9), the meat-offering was the only part of the evening sacrifice at which the people could assist” (Thenius). The final words: And as for the brazen altar ιִ ?δְ ?ιֶ ?δΞμִּ ?ιμְ ?αַ ?χֵּ ?ψ, are translated by the Vulg.: erit paratum ad voluntatem meam; similarly Philippson: “But to inquire at the brazen altar is my prerogative.” This rendering is evidently incorrect, for αִּ ?χֵּ ?ψ means to investigate but not to seek out or inquire, much less to be at one’s disposition (Leviticus 27:33). It has here the same meaning as in Proverbs 20:25, to consider, so that the phrase is to be translated: “I will consider [farther]” (Fόrst). Thenius, very unnecessarily, desires to read μְ ?αַ ?χֵּ ?ωׁ for μְ ?αַ ?χֵּ ?ψ, because δָ ?ιָ ?δμְ, as he maintains, always means to serve a certain purpose. The meaning would then be “shall be mine for prayer;” i.e., that the old altar should be retained as a “prayer-altar.” δָ ?ιָ ?δμְ is used here, however, as it is in Genesis 15:12; 1 Samuel 4:9; Joshua 2:5. No distinction between prayer-altars and altars of sacrifice was recognized in ancient times. Ahaz did not desire that the altar of Solomon, which had hitherto been held very sacred, should be removed at once, but he desired to wait and see how the people would regard the innovation. He therefore reserved his further commands for a time. 2 Kings 16:17. And king Ahaz cut off, &c. Thenius maintains that this and the following verse are a continuation of the first half of verse 10, and that a more precise statement is here added to the re-report of Ahaz’ journey to Damascus which is there spoken of, viz., that it was impossible for him, after he had obtained the needed assistance, to appear before Tiglath Pileser with empty hands; that the treasury was empty (2 Kings 16:8); that he was, therefore, compelled to take for this gift anything which could be made available; and that this is what is meant by the closing words of 2 Kings 16:18 : “for the king of Assyria.” But 2 Kings 16:17-18 clearly carry on the narrative of what occurred after the return of the king from Damascus (2 Kings 16:12). They are therefore a direct continuation of 2 Kings 16:10-16. Besides the removal of the brazen altar, Ahaz undertook still further changes in the sanctuary, namely those which are mentioned in 2 Kings 16:17-18. As the brazen oxen are among the things which he removed, and as they were not carried away from Jerusalem until the Babylonians carried them off (Jeremiah 52:20), it is not to be understood that they were carried as a gift to Damascus by Ahaz. As it was with the oxen, so it must have been also with the other decorations mentioned in 2 Kings 16:17. Finally the words: “for (ξִ ?τְּ ?πֵ ?ι) the king of Assyria,” cannot be understood in the sense of: “In the service of the king of Assyria” (Luther), or, “In order to obtain (by abstracting the decorations mentioned) the necessary gifts for the king” (Thenius); for ξִ ?τְּ ?πֵ ?ι means for in the sense of from fear of anybody (cf. Judges 9:21; Genesis 7:7; Isaiah 20:6; 2 Kings 22:19; Hosea 11:2, &c), but never for the sake of any one, or out of love to him. Ahaz removed all these valuable objects “before the king of Assyria” not in order to make him a present of them, but either because he thought that they would give him offence or because he feared that he might want them and demand them of him. [This last is the true explanation. He wanted to escape the cupidity of the Assyrians by hiding evidences of wealth.—W. G. S.]—On the ξִ ?ζְ ?βְּ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ of the bases and on λִּ ?ιֹּ ?ψ and the brazen sea, see notes on 1 Kings 7:27 sq. Ahaz did not set the last “upon the stone pavement” (Luther), but upon a foundation built of stone.—The ξֵ ?ιρָ ?κְ was “unquestionably a covered place, a platform or hall, in the forecourt of the temple, set apart for the king when he visited the temple with his retinue on the Sabbaths or feast-days” (Keil). This addition was built later than the rest of the temple. Its form cannot be definitely discovered, for it is only mentioned here. The Sept. have for it: τὸνθεμέλιοντῆςκαυέδραςτῶνδαββάτων, which does not throw any light upon it, as they evidently read ξεּ ?ρָ ?ψ, foundation, for ξεּ ?ρָ ?κְ. The king’s entry without is perhaps the “ascent” mentioned in 1 Kings 10:5. According to Thenius it was “the entrance at the eastern gate of the inner court, which lay towards the outer fore-court through which the king alone entered (Ezekiel 46:1-2), and it is mentioned in contrast to the platform of the king in the inner forecourt, which has just been mentioned.” Keil translates δֵ ?ρֵ ?α, which applies to both the localities, “he transferred into the house of Jehovah,” but the platform (ξεּ ?ρָ ?κְ), which was in the inner court, cannot possibly have been transferred into the temple itself, still less the outer entrance. Moreover, why should this transfer have taken place “before” or “for fear of” the king of Assyria? δֵ ?ρֵ ?α means strictly: to make something turn about, to change a thing so that it is not what it was. Hence it often means to change one’s name (2 Kings 23:34; 2 Kings 24:17), and it can only be understood here in the same sense. Thenius: “He ‘changed’ in the same way as he had changed or altered the bases, &c.” This no doubt took place in this way, that he took off from them what was valuable. αֵּ ?ιϊιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ is the ordinary accusative of place, “in the sanctuary.”—We see from 2 Kings 23:12 that Ahaz was not contented with the arrangements for worship here made, but also erected altars on the roof of his “upper chamber.”—In regard to the sepulture of king Ahaz (2 Kings 16:20), 2 Chronicles 28:27, says: “They buried him in the city, in Jerusalem, but they brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israel.” It is not evident why this is an “error,” as Thenius asserts. It does not contradict the record before us, and the same thing occurred in regard to Uzziah, although not for the same reason (cf. 2 Kings 15:7 and 2 Chronicles 26:3). — [Supplementary Note on the references to contemporaneous history in chap. 16, incorporating the results of Assyrian investigations.—As we saw above (p. 161), chap. 15 gives an account of the intervention of Assyria in the history of Israel. Chap. 16 gives the history of the intervention of Assyria in Judah. The first revolt of Pekah and Rezin against Assyria, and their conspiracy to attack Judah and force it to join in the attempt, in the last year of Jotham (742), was crushed before it gained any strength. In 734 they once more united in revolt, and renewed their policy of attacking Judah. Ahaz, hard pressed by them (see Exeg. on 2 Kings 16:7), called to Tiglath Pileser for aid, and paid him tribute. The aid was promptly given, as Tiglath Pileser regarded Rezin and Pekah as rebels. Ahaz was thus relieved from this danger (732). Tiglath Pileser, after dealing with the rebels as described on p. 162, marched into Philistia and took Gaza and Ashdod, and also Dumah in Arabia, and came back to Damascus. It was probably on this march that he “came to” Ahaz, and distressed him; and it was probably at this time that Ahaz removed the furniture of the temple and took away its decorations, lest they might present an appearance of wealth to Tiglath Pileser, and excite his cupidity (see Exeg. on 2 Kings 16:18). In 731, before leaving Damascus to return to Assyria, Tiglath Pileser “held a court” of his vassals at that city. Twenty-three such vassals came. Among them are mentioned Pekah of Israel and Ahaz of Judah (Lenormant I. 389 and 390). Continued in the Supp. Note after the Exeg. section on chap. 17—W. G. S.] AND ETHICAL1. The reign of king Ahaz was the most disastrous through which Judah had yet passed. The kingdom sank so low, both internally and externally, religiously and politically, that it was on the verge of ruin. Such an incapable ruler had never before ascended the throne. The predominant feature in his character was weakness, weakness of spirit and weakness of intellect. History records nothing about him which is worthy of respect. Although Judah and Israel had had many perverse, wicked, and godless rulers, yet these had been at least brave and energetic soldiers; but of Ahaz even this much cannot be said. When the enemy approached “his heart was moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind” (Isaiah 7:2). No word of prophetic promise or encouragement could deliver him from his despair. He was defeated; he did not win a single victoryΣ all the conquests of his two predecessors were lost; the land was devastated and robbed of all its sources of revenue. Finally he turns in his distress, in spite of every warning, to the threatening Assyrian power and purchases its help, not only by the treasures of the temple and the palace, but also with the independence and honor of his kingdom. As is usually the case with weak rulers, he cringes before the mighty, but is arrogant and domineering towards his subjects (cf. 2 Kings 16:7-16). As for the main point, the attitude towards Jehovah, his apostasy was deeper than that of any other king of Judah or even of Israel. He not only tolerated idolatry, but practised it zealously himself, and even went so far in his error as the abomination of sacrificing his own son. The historical books, which only state the facts, do not tell how it came about that a king of Judah, a descendant and successor of David, fell so low, but the prophetical books give us an insight into the religious and moral status of the kingdom. The kingdom of Judah had attained to power and glory under Uzziah and Jotham, as Israel did under Jeroboam II. Flourishing trade and lively intercourse with foreign countries produced wealth, and with it also foreign manners and customs. Finally foreign divinities were introduced. The result was great luxury, effeminacy, debauchery, and excess which soon, especially in the upper classes, led to immorality and vice of every kind. The foreign forms of worship, which were, for the most part, brilliant and’ attractive, and connected with vice, pleased this degenerate generation better than the simple, severe, and earnest Jehovah worship, which indeed continued, but had degenerated into a mere external ceremonial. Uzziah and Jotham had indeed, as we have said above, done their utmost for the external prosperity of the kingdom. They also remained true to the worship of Jehovah, but they were not filled with warm zeal for it, and they did not oppose effective resistance to the invading corruption. Isaiah, who commenced his prophetical labor in the year in which Uzziah died (Isaiah 6:1), says, in the passage in which, according to the generally received opinion, he is speaking of the time of Jotham: “Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the East [filled with Eastern rites and acts] and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers. Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots; their land is also full of idols, they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made” (Isaiah 2:6-8). In another passage, which, though it does not belong to the time of Jotham, yet fails in the beginning of the reign of Ahaz, the prophet describes the degeneracy of morals, the debauchery, licentiousness, pride, deceit, alienation from God, injustice, oppression, &c., of the time (Isaiah 5:8-25). In such circumstances the youthful Ahaz had grown up. Such was the atmosphere which he had breathed from his childhood up. He was emphatically a child of his time, a faithful representative of the majority of the nation, corrupted by foreign modes of thought and morals. By nature he was weak and vacillating. He allowed himself to be swept away by the stream, and sank deeper into a depraved character and career, so that even the heavy judgments which befell him did not avail to bring him into other courses. 2. The idolatry which was practised in Judah, in the time of Ahaz, by the side of the worship of Jehovah, was not of the form peculiar to any particular people, but was like that which Solomon allowed his wives to practise (see Exeg. on 1 Kings 11:5 and Hist. §§ 3 and 4 on 1 Kings 11:1-13), a mixture of the different kinds of worship which predominated in western Asia. Since, as we saw from Isaiah 2:6-8, such a cultus had been established in Judah even in the time of Jotham, and Ahaz found it in existence when he ascended the throne, it follows that it cannot have been Assyrian in origin, for, in Jotham’s time, Judah had not come in contact with Assyria at all. In the book of Chronicles, as well as in the book of Kings, the sacrifice of children is presented as the extreme of apostasy. In its nature this form of sacrifice is the most utter contrast to the worship of Jehovah (see Pt. II., p. 36). As it is not mentioned as having been committed at all before the time of Ahaz, but, on the contrary, he was the first who went so far astray, it has been supposed that he was led to it by becoming acquainted with the Assyrian fire-gods, Adrammelech and Anammelech (2 Kings 17:31) (cf. Movers, Phφniz. I. s. 65; Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 101). The record, however, distinctly contradicts this notion by the words: “According to the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel.” The Assyrians did not belong to this category and the words apply here, as they do wherever they occur (2 Kings 17:8; 2 Kings 17:11; cf. Numbers 33:51-55; Deuteronomy 4:38), to the Canaanitish nations, that is, the nations of western, not of upper, Asia. It is an unquestioned fact that among the former, especially among the Ph�nicians, child-sacrifices were common, and that Moloch, to whom they were offered, was worshipped in western Asia (cf. Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 18:27 sq.; 2 Kings 20:1-5). Moreover, it cannot be proved that Ahaz did not perform such sacrifices until after he became acquainted with the Assyrian cultus. It is mentioned in the most general terms as a sign of his apostasy. His sacrificing and offering incense “under every green tree” does not point to Assyrian star-worship, but to the Astarte and Aschere-worship of western Asia. Duncker’s notion that Ahaz first offered child-sacrifice when Rezin and Pekah were before Jerusalem, and he was most hardly pressed on all sides (“In vain the king offered sacrifices to the gods of Damascus in order to turn the fortunes of war; in vain he sacrificed his own son as a burnt-offering”), is nothing but a pure construction on the basis of 2 Kings 3:27. The biblical text does not offer the slightest hint of it. It is in fact very questionable whether child-sacrifices were common among the nations of Upper Asia, and especially among the Assyrians. It cannot, at any rate, be proved from 2 Kings 17:31. It cannot, indeed, be denied that Ahaz, after he had met Tiglath Pileser in Damascus, became acquainted with the Assyrian cultus and transplanted at least some parts of it to Jerusalem. This is proved, not so much by the fact that he caused an altar to be built after the pattern of the one which he had seen in Damascus, as rather from 2 Kings 23:12, where “altars upon the upper-chamber of Ahaz” are mentioned, evidently referring to Assyrio-Chaldean star-worship (see note below on the place mentioned). The chariots and horses of the sun which are there mentioned most probably belonged to the time of Manasseh. For the rest, Ahaz tolerated the Jehovah-worship after his return from Damascus; for the sacrifices which he commanded the high-priest Urijah to make (2 Kings 16:15) upon the new altar were not offerings to idols but to Jehovah. The weak man had not the courage formally to abolish the Jehovah-worship, for a party which could not be despised still clung to it. He worshipped all possible gods according to his own tastes and notions. In his time there was in Judah complete religious anarchy and license. [See the bracketed note on 2 Kings 16:3 under Exegetical. That note presents the facts in regard to the point discussed in this section according to the latest and best knowledge. It will be seen that it modifies and corrects some of the above statements.] 3. The war which the confederated kings of Israel and Syria undertook against Judah is “one of the most notable and most important events in the Israelitish history” (Caspari). It was the first time that one of the two sister-kingdoms formed an alliance, with the hereditary enemy against the other, in order to destroy it. This was a most unnatural alliance and was a sign of the process of dissolution which was commencing; for it showed that the consciousness of forming with Judah a common nationality based upon common blood and faith had been lost by Israel. The importance and the external prosperity, which had been won by Judah under Uzziah and Jotham (see above, § 1), had perhaps reawakened Ephraim’s ancient, deep-rooted hate and envy of Judah (see 1 Kings 12; Hist. § 1), and incited the faithless and ambitious Pekah to the alliance with Rezin. In addition to this was the fact that Israel had, under Menahem, fallen into a certain position of dependence upon, and subjection to, the growing and threatening Assyrian power, and that Syria had also, in this power, a dangerous neighbor. In order to recuperate Israel at the expense of Judah, and to find a protection on the side of Assyria in the intervening nation of Syria, Pekah formed an alliance with Rezin, who was also eager for conquest, and these two “fire-brands” (Isaiah 7:4) formed the plan of putting an end to the nation of Judah and the house of David. They made their first efforts in this direction in the last years of Jotham, but without success (2 Kings 15:37). “When, however, the weak and incapable Ahaz came to the throne, the right time for carrying out their plan seemed to them to have come. But the Lord said: “Take counsel together and it shall come to naught; speak the word and it shall not stand” (Isaiah 8:10). At the moment when they were close to their object they were obliged to give up their plan, and they ran to their own destruction. Rezin lost his kingdom and his life; Pekah was made subject to Tiglath Pileser, and a part of his people were led away into exile (2 Kings 15:29). Ahaz also lost his kingdom and his people, and had to bow beneath the supremacy of Assyria. The whole war was a heavy judgment upon the three kingdoms. The kingdom of Syria-Damascus, which had, up to this time, been the instrument of the divine judgments against Israel, disappeared forever from the scene. Israel went on with hasty steps to its destruction, for Pekah was murdered by Hoshea in consequence of his subjection to the Assyrians, and Hoshea, as he refused to pay the tribute to Assyria, was taken captive by Shalmaneser. Thus the kingdom of Israel came to an end (2 Kings 17:3 sq.). [See Supp. Note, p. 161. “As the hostility to Judah had given it its origin, so the same hostility brought about its destruction: born from this, it also perished by it” (Caspari). Judah itself, finally, as a punishment for its apostasy from Jehovah, came into that contact with Assyria, from this time on, which had such a deep influence upon its history. From this time the conflicts with the small nationalities ceased and those with the great world-monarchies began. In so far this war was, for Judah also, the beginning of the end. It was a turning-point for both nations which had not heeded the chastisements nor the proofs of the goodness and long-suffering of God, but had hardened themselves more and more in their apostasy. “It was in the highest degree providential that the great world-monarchies began to interfere in Israel just at the time when this hardening took place”(Caspari). But this “war between Judah and the allied kingdoms of Ephraim and Syria is still further especially remarkable for this fact, that the grandest prophecies were spoken in it, and that it forms the historical basis of a product of the Old-Testament prophecy which is of the very highest, or, in fact, of unique significance. This fact stands in connection with the position of this war at the turning-point of the Old-Testament history; in the middle of the Israelitish history, at the end of the first and beginning of the second period, in which latter the fortunes of the people of God under the world-monarchy, its period of suffering, falls. It stood, therefore, at the point where a prospect offered itself to the eye of the prophet which reached out over the whole future development of the kingdom of God” (Caspari). 4. After his visit to Damascus, Ahaz caused certain changes to be made in the arrangements of the temple at Jerusalem which were of greater or less significance. The record mentions some of these very briefly, but speaks more at length of those which affected the altar of burnt-offering. because these were by far the most important, Since the entire cultus was concentrated in the sacrifice, and all sacrifices, those of the individual as well as those of the entire people, were to be offered on this one altar (Leviticus 17:8-9; Deuteronomy 12:13-14), it formed the centre of the sanctuary, which, without it, would have lost its significance. Its form and shape, its position in the sacred edifice, its entire construction, were, therefore, by no means indifferent matters, but they were strictly prescribed in accordance with its character and purpose, so that any alteration of it seemed to be a sort of denial or contradiction of the religious idea which it was constructed to serve. Merely to take away the four horns from its four corners was to desecrate and destroy it (Amos 3:14; Jdt 9:8. Symbol. d. Mosaisch. Cult. I. s. 473). Now when Ahaz caused this altar to be removed and another made on a pattern obtained from Damascus, this was nothing less than an indirect setting aside of the lawful Jehovah-worship, and it bore witness not only to an entire want of comprehension of that worship, but also to an unheard-of self-will. He ordained, indeed, that the priest should offer all the sacrifices which had hitherto been offered—that is to say, all the sacrifices to Jehovah—upon the new altar. He did not diminish the amount of worship to be paid to Jehovah; the crime and folly were that an- idol-altar was used for the worship of Jehovah. It appears that Ahaz intended to gradually transform the Jehovah-worship in this way. Certainly the ground for it was not merely that the form of the altar which he saw “in a city where, according to all the indications which we possess, the fine arts were highly developed, pleased him better than that of the large brazen altar in the forecourt of the temple at Jerusalem” (Ewald), so that “he had rather an ζsthetic than a religious reason for the change” (Thenius). For, aside from the fact that there is not an indication of any especial fondness for art in Ahaz, as, for instance, there was in Solomon, and that he was a weak and incapable man, we must notice that he removed even the works of art which were in the temple; he took away the brazen oxen and he destroyed the artistic “bases” upon which the laver rested. He desired that the new altar should be made exactly like the one he had seen at Damascus, and to this end he sent a model of it to Jerusalem. This shows that his object was not so much to have a beautiful work of art as it was to have an altar made on a pattern borrowed from Damascus; his interest in it was not artistic but political. “When he perceived the zeal of the Assyrian rulers for the propagation of their national cultus, he commanded his priests to change the arrangements of the temple so as to conform to this desire” (Duncker). His ordinance in this respect was simply a contemptible captatio benevolenti� for the Assyrian king. The removal of the twelve oxen of the brazen sea, which he then placed upon a mere foundation of stone, was, if we consider the significance of this piece of the temple furniture as it is stated above (1 Kings 7, Hist. § 6), a degradation of the Israelitish priesthood and a contradiction of the destiny of Israel as the chosen priest-people, as well as an assault upon the character of the Israelitish religion. The same is true in regard to the removal of the Misgeroth from the bases, for upon them were the characteristic emblems of the inner sanctuary, cherubim and palms (see above, 1 Kings 7, Hist. § 7). Movers’ opinion (Relig. der Phφn.), that Ahaz removed the oxen, &c., because the symbolism of animals was especially abominable to the Assyrians, who were addicted to star-worship, seems to us to be entirely erroneous. The changes, finally, which Ahaz made in the gallery and standing-place of the king are not more definitely specified. Possibly there were emblems upon them also which were peculiar to the Jehovah-worship. “We hear nothing of any changes in the interior of the sanctuary. Those which were made affected only the objects which stood in the fore-court, so that they were prominently before the eye and might offend the Assyrians. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ C.—The Fall of the Kingdom of Israel, under Hoshea2 Kings 17:1-411 In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah began [omit began] Hoshea the son of Elah [became king] to reign [omit to reign] in Samaria over Israel nine years. 2And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, but not as the kings of Israel that were before him. 3Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents 4[tribute] And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison. 5Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years. 6In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in [on the] Habor [,] by the river of [omit of] Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes [Media]. 7For so it was, that [so it came to pass that when] the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God, which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods, 8And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel, and [in those] of the kings of Israel, which [statutes] they [i.e., the kings] had made. [:—] 9And the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against the Lord their God, and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city. 10And they set them up images and groves [statues] in [on] every high hill, and under every green tree: 11And there they burnt incense in [on] all the high places, as did the heathen whom the Lord carried away [removed] before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke the Lord to anger: 12For they served idols, whereof the Lord had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing. 13Yet the Lord testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by [and by] all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets. 14Notwithstanding, they would not hear [And they heard not], but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the Lord their God. 15And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should not do like them. 16And they left all the commandments of the Lord their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove [an Astartestatue] and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. 17And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divinations and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, 18to provoke him to anger. [:—] Therefore [It came to pass, I say (2 Kings 17:7), that then] the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only. [(] 19Also Judah kept not the commandments of the Lord their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel 20which they made. [)] And [then] the Lord rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight. 21For he rent Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: and Jeroboam drave [seduced] Israel from following the Lord, and made them sin a great sin. 22For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they departed not from them: 23Until the Lord removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day. 24And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, 25and dwelt in the cities thereof. And so it was [it came to pass] at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the Lord: therefore the Lord sent lions among them, which slew some of [slaughtered amongst] them. 26Wherefore they spake to the king of Assyria, saying, The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land: therefore he hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land. 27Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land. 28Then one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Beth-el, and taught them how they should fear the Lord. 29Howbeit every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt. 30And the men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made Ashima, 31And the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. 32So they feared the Lord, and made unto themselves of the lowest of them [from the common people] priests of the high places, which sacrificed for them in the 33houses of the high places. They [i.e., these immigrants] feared the Lord, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom [whence] they [were] carried away from thence [omit from thence]. 34Unto this day they [i.e., the remnant of the Israelites] do after the former manners: they fear not the Lord, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the Lord commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel; 35With whom the Lord had made a covenant, and charged them, saying, Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow 36yourselves to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them: But [only] the Lord, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, him shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship, and to him shall ye do sacrifice. 37And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods. 38And the covenant that I have made with you ye shall not 39forget; neither shall ye fear other gods. [;] But [only] the Lord your God ye 40shall fear; and he shall deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies. Howbeit [and] they did not hearken, but they did after their former manners. 41So these nations [i.e., all the mixed inhabitants of the northern kingdom] feared the Lord, and served their graven images, both their children, and their children’s children: as did their fathers, so do they unto this day. The Chronology of the Period from the Reign of Jehu until the fall of the Kingdom of Israel[Compare the Appendix on the Chronology] This period, as well as that from Ahab to Jehu, presents chronological difficulties. Their solution can be successfully accomplished only by starting from the surest possible data, and bringing together and comparing all the separate chronological statements. For the starting-point we have the year 884 in which Jehu, in Israel, and Athaliah, in Judah, came to the throne; the date of the close of the period is also firmly established. The kingdom of Israel came to an end, according to the great majority of the chronologers, in the year 721 b.c. However much they may differ about the limits of the several reigns, they generally agree in this. So Petavius, Usher, Scaliger, Seyffarth, Winer, Tiele, Keil. See Herzog’s Encyc. XVIII. s. 459, where Rφsch has collected into a table the results of the investigations of twelve chronologers. [Rawlinson may be added to the number of those who advocate the date 721. On the other hand are Des Vignoles, 718; Bengel, 722; Ewald, 719; Thenius, 722; Bunsen, 709; Niebuhr. 719; and Lepsius still later, 693. It cannot be regarded as a satisfactory scientific procedure to thus borrow the results of a certain number of scholars. There is no such consensus of opinion as would enable us to simply proceed from these dates as results of science which are no longer questioned. In the absence of such a consensus it is mere building upon the sand to make them the foundation of a calculation which makes claim to reliability. It is to gain the appearance of certainty where there is no certainty. In the Appendix on the Chronology will be found a brief criticism of these chronological data and an estimate of their value.—W. G. S.] Bengel and Thenius adopt the date 722, but the difference is not important. They agree with the others in placing Hezekiah’s accession in the year 727, and Samaria fell (2 Kings 18:10) during his sixth year, that is, in the year 721. Ewald adopts the year 719 instead of 721. The cause of this difference is that he reckons the years of some of the reigns as complete years, which, as we shall see, is inadmissible. Bunsen differs very widely from the rest. He fixes this date as 709, but his entire calculation is founded upon data of the Assyrian chronology which are, as yet, in the highest degree uncertain, and which have not been yet regarded by anybody as correct. [See the Appendix on the Chronology, §§ 3 and 6. They cannot, therefore, avail to shake our confidence in the two dates 884 and 721. This period accordingly covers 163 years, and, as the numbers given for the various reigns do not always apply to complete years, but sometimes to fragments of years (see Pt. II., p. 86), inasmuch as the year in which one died and another succeeded may be counted twice over, these 163 years give us the only reliable basis for estimating the length of the separate reigns. If then we calculate, commencing from the year 884, we reach the following results:— a) For the kings of Judah. Athaliah reigned from 884 on for six years. In the seventh, that is in 877, Joash became king (2 Kings 11:3; 2 Kings 12:2). Since, however, he became king in the seventh year of Jehu, the forty years of his reign were not complete years, so that the accession of his successor falls in 838.—Amaziah reigned 29 years (2 Kings 14:2), that is to 809, or, if the years were not all complete, until 810, or possibly 811.—Uzziah (Azariah) reigned 52 years (2 Kings 15:2), that is, until 759 or 758, for all the years of his reign can hardly have been complete twelve-months.—Jotham reigned 16 years (2 Kings 15:33), that is, until 743.—Ahaz reigned 16 years (2 Kings 16:2), that is, until 727, in which year Hezekiah came to the throne. In the latter’s sixth year (2 Kings 18:10) Samaria fell; that is, in 721. If we add together the numbers representing the durations of these reigns we get 165 years, whereas the time from 884 to 721 is only 163 years. This difference is only apparent. It proceeds from the fact that fragments of years at the beginning or end of reigns are counted as years. b) For the kings of Israel. Jehu reigned from 884 on for 28 years (2 Kings 10:3; 2 Kings 10:6), that is, until 856.—Jehoahaz reigned 17 years (2 Kings 13:1), that is, till 840 or 839.—Jehoash ruled 16 years (2 Kings 13:10), that is, until 823.—Jeroboam II. reigned, according to 2 Kings 14:23 only 41 years. But, as he is said in the same verse to have become king in the fifteenth year of Amaziah of Judah, and as this statement is consistent with 2 Kings 14:1; 2 Kings 14:17, he must have been king, as is shown above (chap. 14, Exeg. on 2 Kings 17:23), for 51 or 52 years, unless we are willing to assume that there was an interval of anarchy for 10 or 11 years. At any rate, his son Zachariah did not come to the throne before the year 773. He only ruled six months and his successor Shallum, in the following year, 772, only one month (2 Kings 15:8; 2 Kings 15:13). Menahem reigned from 772 on for 10 years (2 Kings 15:17), that is until 762.—Pekahiah reigned two years (2 Kings 15:23), that is, until 760.—Pekah ruled only 20 years according to 2 Kings 15:27; but according to 2 Kings 17:32 he ascended the throne two years before Jotham of Judah, survived him (he lived 16 years, 2 Kings 17:33), and waged war with Ahaz, his successor. It was not until the twelfth year of the last-named king that Hoshea became king. Now 2+16+12=30; therefore, either Pekah reigned 30 years and not 20, or there was no king in Israel for a space of 10 years (see notes on 2 Kings 15:27). [See the Supp. Note after the Exeg. section on the fifteenth chapter.] This much is certain, that Hoshea became king 30 years after 760, when Pekah ascended the throne, that is, in 730. He reigned 9 years, that is, until 721.—The sum of all the reigns mentioned Isaiah 164 instead of 163 years, and this slight difference is accounted for as before in the case of the kings of Judah. c) The synchronistic data between the reigns in the two kingdoms. Athaliah in Judah and Jehu in Israel began to reign in the same year 884. Joash, Athaliah’s successor, became king in the seventh year of Jehu (2 Kings 12:2), or, since the latter became king in 884, in 877.—Amaziah became king in the second year of Jehoash (2 Kings 14:1), or, since Jehoash ascended the throne in 840 or 839, in the year 838.—Uzziah became king, according to 2 Kings 15:1, in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam II, but this statement rests, as was shown in the comment on that passage, and as is generally admitted, upon an error of the copyist. We must read, according to 2 Kings 14:17, in the fifteenth year, but this was not a full year, so that Josephus says: “In the fourteenth year of Jeroboam.” Since now the latter became king in 823, Uzziah ascended the throne in 809.—Jotham became king in the second year of Pekah, 2 Kings 15:32, or, as the latter became king in 760, in 759.—Ahaz became king in the seventeenth year of Pekah (2 Kings 16:1), or, as the latter began to reign in 760, in 743.—Hezekiah finally became king in the third year of Hoshea (2 Kings 18:1), or, as he ascended the throne in 730, in 727.—In Israel, the successor of Jehu, Jehoahaz, began to reign, according to the correct reading in 2 Kings 13:1 (see Exeg. note thereon), in the twenty-first year of Joash, king of Judah, or, as he became king in 877, in 856.—Joash became king in the thirty-seventh year of Jehoash of Judah (2 Kings 13:10), or, as the latter ruled from 877, in 840 or 839.—Jeroboam II. became king in the fifteenth year of Amaziah (2 Kings 14:23), or, as the latter began to reign in 838, in 823.—The accession of the five following kings: Zachariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, and Pekah is defined (2 Kings 15:8; 2 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 15:17; 2 Kings 15:23; 2 Kings 15:27) in terms of the years of Uzziah’s reign. Since, however, the year of the accession of this king is less certain than that of almost any other (Bengel and Thenius put it in 811, Usher and Keil in 810, Petavius and Winer in 809, Ewald and Niebuhr in 808), it is uncertain what year was his thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, fiftieth and fifty-second. But this does not render the chronology radically uncertain. The year of accession of these kings can be very satisfactorily ascertained from other data (see above, under b). Moreover, the statements in terms of the years of Uzziah’s reign are not perfectly accurate, as we see from 2 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 15:23. For, if Menahem became king in the thirty-ninth of Uzziah and reigned 10 years, Pekahiah must have followed in the forty-ninth, and not, as 2 Kings 17:23 states, in the fiftieth of Uzziah. On the other hand, it is certain that Menahem and Pekahiah together reigned for 12 years, viz., from 722 to 760. The year in which Zachariah began to reign (according to 2 Kings 17:8 the thirty-eighth of Uzziah) may, therefore, have been the year 773; but it is also possible, inasmuch as he and Shallum did not both together reign for a year, that all these kings, Zachariah, Shallum, and Menahem, came to the throne in the same year, 772, and therefore, since the synchronistic data and the chronological data do not coincide, that the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth of Uzziah both fell in the year 772.—Hoshea, finally, became king in the twelfth year of Ahaz (2 Kings 17:1), or, since he became king in 743, and this was the very beginning of his twelfth year, in 730. d) From this review it follows that the chronological data in no less than fifteen places, however much they may traverse and interlace one another, nevertheless agree, for the difference of a single year which appears here and there is fully accounted for by the peculiarity of the Jewish mode of reckoning, and it cannot be regarded here, any more than in the former period, as a contradiction. [In making this comment on the chronology, Bδhr must take it for granted that the reader has fresh in his mind those changes in the text which have been found necessary, and those assumptions which have been made in order to complete the construction of the chronology. With this modification the above may be allowed to pass as a just comment on what has gone before. Otherwise it would convey a very incorrect impression of the reliability of this chronology.—W. G. S.] Now, on the other hand, there remains one datum which is utterly irreconcilable with these which have been considered. According to 2 Kings 15:30 Hoshea became king in the twentieth year of Jotham, son of Uzziah. This stands in contradiction to three other statements which are consistent with each other. According to 2 Kings 15:33 Jotham did not reign for 20 but only for 16 years, as is also stated in 2 Chronicles 27:1. According to 2 Kings 17:1, Hoshea did not become king until the twelfth year of Ahaz the successor of Jotham. According to 2 Kings 16:1, Ahaz commenced to reign in the seventeenth year of Pekah, and as Ahaz waged war with Pekah (2 Kings 16:5), it is impossible that Pekah’s successor, Hoshea, should have begun to reign during the reign of the predecessor of Ahaz, Jotham. All sorts of attempts have been made to solve this flat contradiction (see Winer, R.-W.-B. 1, s. 614). We take notice here only of the two most common ones. The first is to this effect: Jotham was coregent with his father Uzziah for four years, during his sickness (2 Kings 15:5). If these four years are added to the sixteen of his reign, he was king for 20 years, and Hoshea became king in his twentieth. This attempt at a solution is disposed of, not to speak of other objections, by the statement in 2 Kings 17:1, that Hoshea did not become king until the twelfth year of Jotham’s successor, Ahaz. The second attempt at a solution, the one which was adopted by Usher, and which has been lately designated by Keil as the only successful one, assumes that, in 2 Kings 15:30; 2 Kings 15:4 years of the reign of Ahaz are reckoned in the reign of Jotham, “because the history of Jotham’s reign is not narrated until we come to 2 Kings 17:32 sq.” But the years of the reign of a king cannot possibly be reckoned on after his death, least of all when, as here, his successor followed immediately; moreover, as above stated, Hoshea did not become king in the fourth of Ahaz (or, if so reckoned, the twentieth of Jotham) but in the twelfth of Ahaz. All attempts at a reconciliation are here vain. Hitzig and Thenius have attempted to escape the difficulty by text-conjectures, but these are so complicated that they do not fall, in point of improbability, at all behind the artificial attempts at reconciliation. When we examine the final words of 2 Kings 15:30 : “In the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah,” they strike us as strange and unusual. In other cases we do not find the date of a king’s accession given in terms of the corresponding reign in the sister-kingdom until we come to the place where the history of the new reign begins (see the proof-passages quoted above, Pt. II., p. 89). Such is the case here also with reference to Hoshea, 2 Kings 17:1. The author, who, in the usual place, viz., where the history of Jotham’s reign begins, 2 Kings 15:33, states the duration of that reign at 16 years, in agreement with 2 Chronicles 27:1, cannot possibly have spoken, a few lines before, in 2 Kings 17:30, of the twentieth year of Jotham. If he had, he must have been more forgetful than the most thoughtless copyist. In fact these words are, in this place, not only superfluous, because the statement of the year in which Hoshea became king is given farther on in its proper place (2 Kings 17:1), but they are even a cause of confusion. If they should be adopted as correct, it would be necessary to change a whole series of data to correspond with them. All this renders it very probable that the words are a false and late addition, in regard to which the case stands as it does with 2 Kings 1:17 (see Pt. II., pp. 87–8). Another circumstance which goes to prove this is that Jotham’s father is called, in 2 Kings 17:1; 2 Kings 17:6-8; 2 Kings 17:13; 2 Kings 17:17; 2 Kings 17:23; 2 Kings 17:27, Azariah; here all at once he is called Uzziah. Keil unjustly characterizes the erasure of this clause as “violent,” for we are compelled to it, since fifteen other passages, all of which are consistent with one another, are in irreconcilable conflict with this one, so that it introduces contradiction and confusion into the entire chronology of the period. The question is simply whether we will correct all the other data to bring them into consistency with this one, or whether we will sacrifice it. If it is not “violent” to change the number “27,” in 2 Kings 15:1, into 15, as Keil does, then it is not violent to regard the number 20, in 2 Kings 15:30, as incorrect. e) In this period, as well as in the former one, some have thought it necessary to assume joint-reigns and interregna, that is, times of anarchy in which there was no king. So it is supposed that the two Israelitish kings Jehoahaz and Jehoash reigned together for 2 or 3 years, and the Jewish kings Jotham and Ahaz for 4 years. We have spoken above (Pt. II, p. 88) about the theory of joint-reigns in general, but besides this, the first of these cases is disposed of when we have discovered the correct reading in 2 Kings 13:1; 2 Kings 13:10 (see Exeg. notes thereon); and the second, when we have removed the false addition 2 Kings 15:30, upon which alone it rests. The assumed interregna have much more probability in their favor. Formerly it was often assumed that there was an interregnum of 11 years between Amaziah and Uzziah in Judah, but this is now almost entirely abandoned, and rightly. On the other hand, two others are still assumed in the history of Israel by almost all scholars, the first of 11 years, between Jeroboam 2. and Zachariah; the second of 9 or 10 years, between Pekah and Hoshea, to which reference was made above under b). But the biblical text does not hint at any such interregna, though they must have been of great importance for the history of the kingdom. On the contrary, it always assumes that each king was followed immediately upon his death by his successor. The author makes especial mention of the fact about Edom that “there was no king in Edom” (1 Kings 22:48), and he mentions a king who reigned but 7 days (1 Kings 16:15), and another who reigned but a month (2 Kings 15:13). Certainly he would not have passed in silence over the fact that Israel, at two different times, for periods of 9 or 11 years, was without a king. It is true, as Keil says, that “A period of anarchy in a time of the utmost confusion and distraction would not be anything astonishing,” but it certainly would be astonishing that the text should be silent about such an important historical event. There are no historical statements whatsoever in the text which have led to the hypothesis of interregna. This hypothesis is the result solely of the desire to reconcile certain chronological data. We cannot, however, be induced to manufacture history to account for certain discrepancies in figures, discrepancies which can arise so easily from simple errors either of a copyist or of others. Josephus is as silent about any periods in which there were no kings as the Bible is. Ewald calls the hypothesis that there were such periods “erroneous in every respect. It contradicts the tenor of the text directly, and produces an utterly incorrect conception of the history.” Bunsen also rejects the hypothesis decidedly. Wolff, in the work quoted above (Pt. II., p. 89) says: “We must, therefore, have done entirely with this notion of interregna as an escape from difficulties. It invents arbitrarily blank and empty periods and inserts them in the history.” When, however, Wolff changes most of the chronological data of the text,—when he gives Jehoahaz 14 instead of 17 years, and Jehoash 19 instead of 16, when he makes Amaziah succeed in the fourth instead of the second year of Jehoash, Zachariah in the twenty-sixth instead of in the thirty-eighth year of Uzziah, Pekahiah in the thirty-eighth instead of in the fiftieth year of Uzziah, Pekah in the forty-first instead of in the fifty-second of Uzziah, and asserts that the two Israelitish kings Jehoash and Jeroboam II. ruled over Judah, the former for 4 years and the latter for 27 years, that is all as void of foundation and as arbitrary as is the “interregnum-hypothesis” which he rejects. AND 2 Kings 17:2. And he did that which was evil * but not as the kings of Israel, i.e., not to the same degree as his predecessors. As the formula: “He did that which was evil, &c.,” always refers to the attitude towards Jehovah and the Jehovah-cultus, so the restriction: “But not,” &c., must be understood as applying to the same, just as in 2 Kings 3:2. We are not told wherein Hoshea differed from his predecessors in this respect. It is not at all probable that he desisted from the calf-worship (Thenius). If he had done so he would have broken down the wall of separation between the two kingdoms, and the text would certainly have contained some mention of it. The old commentators for the most part follow the statement of the rabbis in the book, Seder Olam, chap. 22, according to which Hoshea did not replace the golden calf-image at Bethel (Hosea 10:6), which had been carried away by the Assyrians, and made no opposition to his subjects’ accepting Hezekiah’s invitation to the passover-festival at Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 30:6-11). But, according to the account in Chronicles, this invitation was laughed at and scorned; only “a few” accepted it, which shows that Jeroboam’s cultus was still maintained under Hoshea. Moreover, Hezekiah’s passover certainly did not take place before the three-year siege of Samaria, but rather after it. Perhaps Hoshea’s better behavior was limited to this, that he was an opponent of the idolatry which had found entrance under his immediate predecessors. 2 Kings 17:3. Against him came up Shalmaneser, king of Assyria. This king must have ruled between Tiglath Pileser (2 Kings 25:29) and Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:13) in Assyria. It has hitherto been believed that Sargon, who is mentioned in Isaiah 20:1, ruled for a short time between these two, but, “through the deciphering of the cuneiform inscriptions it is placed beyond a doubt that the king of Assyria who is called in the biblical annals Shalmaneser or Shalman [Hosea 10:14], really bore the name of Sargana, so that he is identical with Sargon, who was the father and immediate predecessor of Sennacherib” (Wolff, in the above quoted work, s. 672. cf. Brandis, Ueber den historischen Gewinn aus der Entzifferung der assyrischen Inschriften, ss. 48 and 53). [Later discoveries show that this statement is incorrect. Sargon and Shalmaneser are different persons, and not even of the same dynasty. See the Supp. Note at the end of this section, in which this whole subject is treated.] Among the countries mentioned in the inscriptions as having been conquered by Sargana is “Samirina” (Samaria). (See notes on 2 Kings 18:13 below.) Hoshea does not seem to have provoked Shalmaneser’s first expedition against him (2 Kings 17:3). It appears to have been an expedition of conquest on the part of the growing and spreading Assyrian power, yet it is also possible that Tiglath Pileser had imposed a tribute upon Pekah which Hoshea refused to continue to pay, and that the expedition was intended to compel him to do so. When he, however, at a later time, again refused the tribute (2 Kings 17:4), and had recourse to Egypt for help to resist, the king of Assyria came a second time and took away from him his country and his people. As Shalmaneser waged war with Tyre, but island Tyre resisted him for five years (Josephus; Antiq. 9, 14, 2), Ewald supposes, and very many of the latest authorities follow him, that the people of Samaria joyfully recognized in this a proof that the Assyrians were not invincible, and considered this a favorable opportunity to make an offensive and defensive alliance with Egypt; furthermore, that when Shalmaneser heard of this, he suddenly marched against Hoshea. It is impossible, however, to determine certainly whether the war against Island-Tyre took place before or after the fall of Samaria. Knobel in fact, in his comment on Isaiah 20:1, assumes that it took place after that event. Thenius unnecessarily desires to change χֶ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ, conspiracy, to ωֶׁ ?χֶ ?ψ, falsehood, deceit. We have to understand by “conspiracy” nothing more than a secret agreement. The name of the Egyptian king ρεΰ is to be punctuated ρֵ ?εֶ ?ΰ, Seveh. In Manetho he is called Ζευεχὸς. He is doubtless “one of the two kings named Shebek of the twenty-fifth dynasty, belonging to the Ethiopic race” (Keil). Hoshea turned to him because Egypt was at that time the only great power which seemed at all able to cope with Assyria. It seems, however, that Seveh did not enter into the alliance, or, if he did, that he did not carry it out when the Assyrian attack was made. On the words: The king of Assyria shut him up, &c., Vatablus remarks: Hoc dicitur per anticipationem; postea narratur, quomodo factum. The final consequences which Hoshea’s attempted revolt had for his own person are stated forthwith, and then in 2 Kings 17:5-6 the particular description of the course of events in regard to the country and the people is given (Thenius). It is not, therefore, correct that “Shalmaneser ordered him to appear and give an account of his conduct” before the siege of Samaria, “and then, when he came in obedience to this command, made him prisoner” (Ewald, Schlier). The text does not say this; on the contrary, the words in 2 Kings 17:6 and in 2 Kings 18:10 : “In the ninth year of Hoshea,” assume that Hoshea was king when the city was taken. Moreover, it is very improbable that Hoshea, who had sought for, and was expecting, aid from Egypt, would have forthwith obeyed the summons of the king of Assyria, from which he could not anticipate any pleasant consequences, and that, after the king of Samaria had been made captive, that city should have resisted for three years. On the contrary, the captive king was taken in chains to Assyria after the city had been taken, and there he was put in prison, while his people were led into exile in distant regions. “Plate 100 in Botta’s Monum. de Ninev. represents a king standing upon a war chariot, before whom a chained captive with apparently. Hebrew features is being led. Plate 106 represents two figures with the same cast of countenance and appropriate costume, one of whom is presenting the model of a fortified city” (Thenius). ςφψ is used here as in Jeremiah 33:1; Jeremiah 36:5—The three years of the siege were not thirty-six months, for, according to 2 Kings 18:9 sq. it began in the seventh of Hoshea, and the city was taken in his ninth. Accordingly it can hardly have lasted for two years and a half. [The later discoveries have so changed the face of our knowledge of all this contemporaneous history that the above must all be modified by what is stated in the Supp. Note below.] 2 Kings 17:6. And carried Israel away into Assyria, i.e., into the kingdom of Assyria, which then included Mesopotamia, Media, Elam, and Babylon (Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 102). It is, therefore, a general designation of place which is followed by the names of the particular localities in this kingdom. The two first names, in Halah and on the Habor, belong together, as well as the two latter, On the river Gozan and in the cities of Media, as is evident from 1 Chronicles 5:26 : “And brought them unto Halah, and [to the] Habor, and [to] Hara [i.e., Media] and to the river Gozan.” This verse also shows that πְ ?δַ ?ψβּ ?εֹ ?ζָ ?ο is not, as has often been supposed, in apposition to αְּ ?ηַ ?αεֹ ?ψ: “To the Habor, the river of Gozan,” so that Habor would be the name of this river. There is nothing else with which the name Halah can be identified but the district in the north of Assyria bordering upon Armenia, which Strabo (2 Kings 11:8; 2 Kings 11:4 and 2 Kings 16:1; 2 Kings 16:1) calls Καλαχανή, and Ptolemy (2 Kings 6:1) Καλακινή. [Lenormant takes it to mean Calah, the capital of Assyria at this time.] Habor is not λְּ ?αָ ?ψ (Ezekiel 1:1; Ezekiel 1:3) in upper Mesopotamia, the large river which flows into the Euphrates, but, because the name Halah precedes, it must be “the smaller river of this name which flows westward and empties into the Tigris to the north of Nineveh” (Ewald). Here, in northern Assyria, there is a river, “which is called Khabur Chasani� to distinguish it from the river Chaboras or Chebar in Mesopotamia. It still bears its ancient name” (Keil). The Jewish tradition also favors this. This designates northern Assyria, and, in fact, the mountainous region, the district on the border between Assyria and Media, on the side towards Armenia, as the place of exile of the ten tribes (cf. Wickelhaus; Das Exil der zehn Stδmme Israels, in the Deutsch-morgenlδnd. Zeitschrift; V. s. 474). The river Gozan is “the Kisel-osen, which rises in the northern part of the Zagros range and flows into the Caspian Sea” (Fόrst, Dictionary s. v.). It refers, therefore, not to the district of Mesopotamia which Ptolemy calls (2 Kings 5:18) Γαυζανῖτις, but to the city of Media which he mentions (2 Kings 6:2) as Γαυζανία. This we see also from the passage in Chronicles quoted above, where “the river Gozan” is mentioned after Harah, Media. “If this river, which bounds Media, is the one meant, we can understand why the ‘and’ is, in this connection, omitted before it. The two first names and the two latter names then belong more closely in pairs” (Ewald). Thenius desires to change πְ ?δַ ?ψ into πַ ?δֲ ?ψֵ ?ι, and ςָ ?ψֵ ?ι into δָ ?ψֵ ?ι, because the Sept. here read: ἐν ’Eλαὲ καὶ ἑν ’ΑβὼρποταμοῖςΓωζὰνκαὶ ἐνὁρίοιςΜήδων, so that Halah also would have to be taken as the name of a river, that is, of the one anciently called Mygdonius and afterwards Saokaras. But the Sept. have, in the similar verse, 2 Kings 18:11, the singular ποταμῷ. The plural ποταμοῖς is, therefore, evidently a mistake. This disposes of the rash supposition that Halah is the Saokaras. The proposed reading δָ ?ψֵ ?ι is, to say the least, unnecessary. 2 Kings 17:7. And it came to pass when the children of Israel, &c. The frequently recurring ειδιιλ means always: “And it came to pass when (Genesis 6:1; Genesis 26:8; Genesis 27:1; Exodus 1:21; Judges 6:7, &c.). It is not correct, therefore, to translate as Bunsen, De Wette, and others do: “And it came to pass, because.” 2 Kings 17:7 does not carry on the narrative as it is taken from the original authorities, but the writer himself here begins a review of the history and fate of Israel, which ends with 2 Kings 17:23 and forms an independent section by itself. The conclusion to the opening sentence: “And it came to pass, when,” &c. follows in 2 Kings 17:18 : “That then the Lord was very angry.” 2 Kings 17:8-15 contain merely a development of what is said in 2 Kings 17:7, inasmuch as they go on to specify how, and by what means, the children of Israel “sinned,” viz., partly by apostatizing from Jehovah and falling into idolatry (Exodus 20:2-3), and partly by making for themselves molten calf-images to represent Jehovah (Exodus 20:4). It is shown in the verses from 18 to 23 that these transgressions brought down judgments upon them, and what was the character of these judgments—The words in 2 Kings 17:7 : Which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt * king of Egypt must not be taken as a parenthesis, as Luther takes them. They do not contain a mere incidental remark; rather the entire emphasis rests upon them, as is evident from Hosea 12:10; Hosea 13:4-6. The deliverance from Egypt was really the selection of Israel to be God’s peculiar and covenant people (Exodus 19:4-6). It was not only the beginning, but also the symbol, of all divine grace towards Israel, the pledge of its divine guidance. It therefore stands at the head of the covenant, or organic law (Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy 5:6), and it is always cited as the chief and fundamental act of the divine favor (Leviticus 11:45; Joshua 24:17; 1 Kings 8:51; Psalms 81:10; Jeremiah 2:6, &c.). Therefore this author also makes that the standpoint for his review and criticism of the history. He means to say, thereby: although no people on earth had experienced such favor from Almighty God as Israel had, nevertheless it abandoned this God and adored other gods. 2 Kings 17:8-12 state the manner in which this latter fault was committed. The worship of idols was the worship practised by the very people whom God expelled before the Israelites, and whose utter destruction he commanded, that is to say, of the nations of Western Asia (2 Kings 17:8, cf. Deuteronomy 11:23; 1 Kings 14:24; 1 Kings 21:26; 2 Kings 16:3; 2 Kings 21:2). But the Israelites erected places of worship all over the country, after the fashion of the heathen, instead of worshipping the one true God in the one central sanctuary (2 Kings 17:9-11). They also followed the example of the heathen in setting up idol images which they worshipped (2 Kings 17:12)—ηֻ ?χּ ?εֹ ?ϊ, 2 Kings 17:8, means religious ordinances (see notes on 1 Kings 2:3; 1 Kings 3:3). Instead of holding faithfully to the ordinances which Jehovah had given, the kings of Israel gave to the people ordinances made by themselves, which were obeyed and observed by them. The result is given in 2 Kings 17:9. The words εַ ?ιְ ?ηַ ?τְּ ?ΰεּ γְּ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ιν are translated by Keil, who follows Hengstenberg: “They covered Jehovah, their God, over with words which were not right, i.e., they sought, by arbitrary distortions of God’s word, to conceal the true character of Jehovah.” It is clear however, from γְּ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ιν in 2 Kings 17:11, and, still more certainly, from δָ ?γָּ ?αָ ?ψ, 2 Kings 17:12, where it cannot possibly be understood otherwise than as thing; that that is its sense here, and not word. The fundamental Signification of δτΰ or ητδ is to cover, cloak over, envelop (2 Samuel 15:30; Esther 6:12; 2 Chronicles 3:5; 2 Chronicles 3:7; 2 Chronicles 3:9). The literal rendering of these words would therefore be: “They covered Jehovah with things which were not right” (2 Kings 7:9), i.e., They concealed him by them, so that he could no longer be seen and recognized, which is as much as to say that they practically denied and ignored him. Compare the formula λτψςμιε to reconcile any one with Jehovah; primarily, to cover up his sins before Jehovah. The things by means of which, or with which, they denied Jehovah are mentioned forthwith, so that Luther correctly represents the sense when he puts nδmlich before the following words. The translation of the Sept. is entirely incorrect: καὶ ἠμφιέσαντολόγουςἀδίκουςκατὰ κυρίουθεοῦ αὐτῶν. Thenius follows this, and explains thus: “They dressed up, decorated, and adorned things which were not right, against Jehovah; i.e., they made a parade of things which were not right against Him,” and he calls attention, in this connection, to “the parade and pomp of the external forms of idolatry.” It is equally incorrect to render the words as the Vulg. does: et offenderunt verbis non rectis dominum suum; or, as Gesenius does: perfide egerunt res in Jehovam; or, as De Wette does: “They wrought secretly things which were not right, against Jehovah.” “With words of covering ςַ ?μ is never against, but always over, or upon (Exodus 37:9; Exodus 40:3; Ezekiel 24:7)—[ The uncertainty attaching to the interpretation of these words is apparent from these diverse renderings of the various expositors. Bδhr’s interpretation, which is closely akin to that of Keil and Hengstenberg, is fanciful and far-fetched. The idea of men covering God, that is, obscuring the sense of His presence, and of their responsibility to Him, by their sins, and thus practically denying Him, is, in a religious sense, most true and just; but it is very foreign to the simplicity of the conceptions which we find in the Old Testament, especially in the historical books. The meaning of ητΰςμ is, to cover a material over an object, or, in the English idiom, to cover an object with a material. If the notion be not pushed farther than this, that they had put their evil lusts and deeds between themselves and God, and preferred these to Him, it offers a meaning which is satisfactory, and which agrees well with the latter half of the verse. I have, however, allowed the E. V., which agrees substantially with the rendering of Gesenius and De Wette, to remain unaltered—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 17:9. From the tower of the watchmen, &c, i, e., from the lonely buildings erected as a protection for the flocks (2 Chronicles 26:10) to the largest and most strongly fortified cities—On 2 Kings 17:10 see 2 Kings 16:4. On ξַ ?φֵּ ?αεֹ ?ϊ see notes on 2 Kings 3:2. On ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψִ ?ιν see note on 1 Kings 14:15. On the meaning of λςν see 1 Kings 14:1-20; Hist. § 3.—In ver 12, the emphasis is on δַ ?βִּ ?μֻּ ?μִ ?ιν, which contains a subordinate contemptuous and abusive signification (see note on 1 Kings 15:12). Israel sank so low that it worshipped lifeless idols, which it ought to have treated with contempt, and whose worship it ought to have disdained. 2 Kings 17:13. The author now goes on in his review to the consideration of that which Jehovah had done in his faithfulness and truth, in contrast to the apostasy of the people, which has just been described. These dealings of God with His people had remained fruitless, or had produced exactly contrary results from those which were desired (2 Kings 17:13-17). Not only in Israel, of which kingdom he has hitherto been speaking especially, but also in Judah, which, according to 2 Kings 17:19, had behaved in a similar manner, had Jehovah borne witness to himself, not only by the law and testimony which had been given, but also by his prophets and seers. Quacunque ratione vel forma illis cernendam proponebat voluntatem suam (Piscator). The form of speech in 2 Kings 17:14, to harden one’s neck, i.e., to be stiff-necked or obstinate, is borrowed from Deuteronomy 10:16. Cf. Exodus 32:9. To disobedience and obstinacy (2 Kings 17:14) they added formal rejection and contempt of the commands and of the testimonies of Jehovah (2 Kings 17:15), and then followed complete decline into heathenism. This last is described by the words: They followed vanity and became vain. The same form of speech is used in Jeremiah 2:5, and St. Paul makes use, in reference to the heathen, in Romans 1:21, of the same expression which the Sept. here use to render this: ἐματαιώθησαν. Heathenism deals with nothingness, vanity, that is, with what has no existence, so that it is folly and falsehood (Deuteronomy 32:21). As a proof that they have fallen into heathenism, that is, have become vain, a series of facts is detailed in 2 Kings 17:16-17, from which this appears clearly. In the first place they made calf-images, then Ascherζ, then they adored the host of heaven (the stars or constellations), and finally they caused their children even to go through the fire (see note on 2 Kings 16:3), and devoted themselves to soothsaying and augury. Besides all this, they sold themselves, that is, “they surrendered themselves into complete slavery to idolatrous practices” (Thenius). All the host of heaven is here mentioned between the worship of the Ascherζ and that of Moloch; that is, by the side of the Moon-goddess and the Sun-god, cf. Deuteronomy 17:3; Deuteronomy 4:19. Perhaps the planets are to be especially understood by it. As the author has here only that period in view which fell before the Assyrian influence commenced, we cannot understand him to refer to the Assyrio-Chaldean worship of the constellations, which is not met with among the Hebrews before the time of Manasseh (2 Kings 21:3; 2 Kings 23:5; 2 Kings 23:11), but only to that which was common in Western Asia, such as we find especially among the Arabs (Winer, R.-W.-B., II. s. 528). Soothsaying and augury are mentioned with the same expressions in Numbers 23:23 and in Deuteronomy 18:10, by the side of the worship of Moloch. They seem to have been especially connected with this worship (Winer, l. c., s. 672). [As has been abundantly shown in the translator’s notes on the two last chapters (see especially note on 2 Kings 16:3), the Assyrian religion became known to the Israelites in the time of Ahaz and Pekah. The subdivisions of the deity (if they may be so called), which these heathen believed in, have been described in that note. But, by the side of each such subordinate or local god, we find a goddess, as the passive principle by the side of the active. These couplets had different names in different places (Bel and Belit at Babylon; Shed and Shedath among the Hittites (ωַׁ ?γַּ ?ι, Genesis 17:1; Job 5:17; Rth 1:20, &c.); Hadad and Atargath at Damascus). The couplet which the Israelites adopted, Baal and Ashtaroth, is that of Sidon, showing whence this religious idea came to them. On the Baal-worship and the rites of Moloch see note on 2 Kings 16:3. The astral idea in this heathen religion does not seem to have attracted the attention of the Israelites before the time of Pekah and Ahaz, although Ashtaroth always had a distinctly sidereal character among the Ph�nicians. The whole religious conception which has been above described, and which prevailed in Western Asia, was carried out by the Chaldeans and Assyrians into an astral system of deities. When the hierarchy of divinities, or deified emanations and attributes, with their corresponding masculine and feminine forms, had been elaborated, they were identified with the luminaries visible in the heavens. The sun, moon, planets, constellations, and stars formed a corresponding hierarchy whose members were identified. Eight cabirim or planets were reckoned; one was supposed to be invisible because it was nearer to the ultimate and original source, the ALL. It is not difficult to perceive the step by which they passed from this to astrology, divination, and sorcery. If the heavenly bodies are gods, or represent gods, and if they are seen to be in motion, then it is natural to suppose that those motions correspond with and cause the mutations of earthly events and fortune. Since the time of Ahaz and Pekah these religious notions had been introduced into Israel and Judah and accepted there. It is to them that the text refers.—“W. G. S.] 2 Kings 17:18. That then the Lord was very angry, &c. Here begins the real conclusion to 2 Kings 17:7 [see the amended translation]. As we had, in 2 Kings 17:8-17, the more complete development of 2 Kings 17:7, so we have here, in 2 Kings 17:19-23, that of 2 Kings 17:18 Out of his sight, i.e. out of the Holy Land where Jehovah has His dwelling; out of the land of the covenant and the land of revelation. Cf. Ezekiel 11:15 sq. On the tribe of Judah only, see 1 Kings 11:13; 1 Kings 11:31; 1 Kings 11:36 (Exeg. notes).—In 2 Kings 17:19 the old expositors thought they saw the statement of a still farther reason for the rejection of Israel by God, which consisted in this, that it had, by its apostasy, tainted Judah also (Hosea 4:15), but the context shows that this notion is false. The verse is rather a parenthesis, as the Berleberg. Bibel observes. It contains an incidental remark which is brought out by the “only” in 2 Kings 17:18. It means to say that “in truth Judah was also ripe for punishment” (Thenius). 2 Kings 17:20 follows directly upon 2 Kings 17:18 in the connection of thought. We must understand by all the seed of Israel, not the entire people. Israel and Judah (Keil), but only the ten tribes; for the rejection of Judah had not yet occurred. The inhabitants of certain districts had been taken into exile, during the reign of Pekah (2 Kings 15:29). The inhabitants of the entire country were now, under Hoshea, taken away. Before that Jehovah had given them, for their chastisement and warning, into the hands of plunderers or “spoilers;” first into the hands of the Syrians (2 Kings 10:32; 2 Kings 13:3), and then into those of the Assyrians (2 Kings 15:19; 2 Kings 15:29)—λִּ ?ι in 2 Kings 17:21, connects back, not only with 2 Kings 17:18, but also with what has been said in 2 Kings 17:18-20. Grotius says justly in regard to 2 Kings 17:21 : ἐπάνοδος ad ostendendam malorum originem. Jeroboam’s calf-worship, which led to pure idolatry, was a consequence of the revolt from the house of David and the separation from Judah, so that these were the cause of all the misfortune. The Vulg. therefore renders, according to the sense: Ex eo jam tempore quo scissus est Israel a domo David. It cannot be correct to take Jehovah as the subject of χψς, as the old expositors did, and as Keil still does. This is a deduction from 1 Kings 11:11; 1 Kings 11:31, but the final cause of the apostasy and rejection of Israel is here given, and that cannot lie in Jehovah himself. The separation from the House of David took place indeed according to God’s decree; but it was only intended to serve as a humiliation to the House of David, and was not to last “forever” (1 Kings 11:39). It took for granted, moreover, that Jeroboam would remain faithful to the covenant and to the Law of Jehovah (1 Kings 11:38). But Jeroboam broke with these in order to make the separation permanent. The separation thereby became the germ of all calamity for Israel. The natural subject of χψς is ιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ (see 1 Kings 12:16), and it is not necessary to read, as Thenius does, πִ ?χְ ?ψַ ?ς, i.e. “Israel had torn itself away;” nor to supply, as De Wette does, ΰֶ ?ϊΞδַ ?ξַּ ?ξְ ?μָ ?λָ ?δ: “Israel had torn away the royal authority from the House of David,” for it is not the monarchy as such which is here in question, but the separation between Israel and Judah, that is, the disruption of the theocratic relation. The words mean simply: secessionem fecerant (Clericus). 2 Kings 17:22 is not a mere repetition of 2 Kings 17:21, but it means: Israel not only fell into this sin of Jeroboam, but it persevered in it in spite of all the divine warnings and chastisements 2 Kings 17:23. As he had said by all His servants the prophets. Cf., for instance, Hosea 1:6; Hosea 9:16; Amos 3:11-12; Amos 5:27 : Isaiah 28:3. Unto this day, i.e. until the time at which the author was writing, which does not mean to affirm that the exile did not last any longer. 2 Kings 17:24. And the king of Assyria brought. This king the old expositors supposed to be Esar-haddon (2 Kings 19:37), because (Ezra 4:2) the Samaritans who desired to take part in the erection of the second temple, say to Zerubbabel: “We do sacrifice unto him [your God] since the days of Esarhaddon, king of Assur, which brought us up hither.” Keil still maintains this, because he thinks that 2 Kings 17:25 shows “that considerable time must have elapsed between the leading of the Israelites into exile and the introduction of new colonists into the depopulated country.” But this does not by any means follow from the words: It came to pass at the beginning of their dwelling there. The context forbids us to think of any other king, than the one above mentioned, Shalmaneser. Esarhaddon was not even his immediate successor, for [Sargon and] Sennacherib intervened. He did not come to the throne until 695 [681] B.C., that is, twenty-six years after the Israelites were led into exile by Shalmaneser in 721. Nothing is more improbable than that the latter should have left the country destitute of population, and that this state of things should have lasted for twenty-six years. The colonists who speak in Ezra 4:2 are [descendants of] later ones, whom Esarhaddon may have sent, for some reason unknown to us, to join those already there. Why does not the author mention by name the king who is spoken of in 2 Kings 19:37, if that is the one he here meant? [This point also is treated in the Note below, at the end of Exeg. section.] Babel is here not the city, but the province, as in Psalms 137:1. The position of Cuthah is entirely uncertain. Josephus says: τὸ Χουθαίωνἕθνος, οἳ πρότερονἐνδοτέρωτῆςΠερσίδοςκαὶ τῆςΜηδίαςἦσαν. According to Gesenius and Rosenmόller, Babylonian Irak must be thought of as lying somewhere in the region of Nahar Malka. Clericus considers the Cuthζans as identical with the Kossζans, in Susiana, in the northeast of what is now Khurdistan, and this opinion is the best founded (cf. Winer, if. R.-W.-B. I. s. 237). As the Samaritans are called by the rabbis simply λεϊιιν, it seems probable that the Cuthζans composed the main body of the colonists. [Cuthah was close to Babylon,—a suburb of it. See the Supp. Note below.] The location of the city or district Ava is also uncertain. It has been sought in Persia, in Syria, and in Mesopotamia. Perhaps it is to be identified with the Ivah which is mentioned in 2 Kings 18:34; 2 Kings 19:13; Isaiah 37:13. [Ivah, however, is unknown. In 2 Kings 17:31 it is said that “the Avites made Nibhaz,” a Chaldean god. Hence this place was unquestionably in Chaldea, near the others except Hamath. Whoever caused this migration had just conquered Chaldea, see the Supplementary Note below.] Hamath (1 Kings 8:65; 2 Kings 14:25), in the north of Palestine, on the Orontes, had then already fallen under Assyrian dominion. Sepharvaim is generally believed to be the Σιπφάρα mentioned by Ptolemy (2 Kings 5:18; 2 Kings 5:7), the southernmost city of Mesopotamia, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. However, as it is mentioned in Isaiah 36:19, together with Hamath and Arpad, Syrian localities, we might be rather led, with Vitringa and Ewald, to the supposition that it was a Syrian city. [It is undoubtedly Sippara, called by the Greeks Heliopolis. (Its divinity was Shamash, the sun, ωֶׁ ?ξֶ ?ωׁ). The Chaldean legend of the flood says that Xisuthrus, warned by the gods of the approach of the flood, buried at Sippara tables on which were written an account of the origin of the world and of the ordinances of religion. His children dug them up after the flood, and they became authorities for the Chaldean religion (Lenormant). The primitive Chaldeans were Turanians; but if the word has a Semitic etymology it would seem to mean the Scripture-city (ρτψ).—W. G. S.] (On these different names, see Winer, R.-W.-B. s. v., [and the Dictionaries of the Bible]. This is the first time that ωֹׁ ?ξְ ?ψεֹ ?ο is used of the entire kingdom. It is incorrect to infer, as Hengstenberg does, from the words: Instead of the children of Israel, that all the inhabitants, to the last man, were taken into exile, for, see 2 Chronicles 34:9. [Samaria was now reduced from the tributary to the provincial position, as Damascus had been twelve years before.] 2 Kings 17:25. And it came to pass at the beginning of their dwelling there, &c. The land became desolate in consequence of the exile of its inhabitants, especially as some time, no doubt, elapsed before the new colonists arrived and brought the land once more under cultivation. It is also probable that their number was not nearly as great as that of the exiles. So it came to pass that the lions, which had been in the country in small numbers before the exile, multiplied to such a degree as to be dangerous to the new inhabitants. Under the circumstances this was not purely a natural incident, but a divine dispensation. The author so considers it, having in mind Leviticus 26:22 (Exodus 23:29; Deuteronomy 32:24; cf. Ezekiel 14:15). The colonists saw in this an interposition of the god of the country, because they had not worshipped him. In order to escape from the plague they sent a request (2 Kings 17:26) to the king who had located them in this country, that he would send some one to them who could teach them how to worship the local deity, so that he might release them from the calamity. [See, on the heathen conception of local deities, Pt. II. p. 57. With a genuine heathen judgment they considered the external worship a means of appeasing the god of whom they knew nothing. The priest who was sent to them was, as 2 Kings 17:27 expressly states, one of the exiles—that is to say, one of the priests of Jeroboam’s calf-worship. He took up his residence at Bethel, the chief seat of the calf-worship (1 Kings 12:29), although the Assyrians had carried away the golden calf (Hosea 10:5). Perhaps they erected there new images, not molten images, but less artistic and less expensive ones. The sending of this priest seems to be so particularly narrated, because it shows how it came that the country did not become entirely heathen. 2 Kings 17:29. Every nation made gods of their own. The new inhabitants, who had been brought from very different countries, set up, in the houses on the high places, which the Samaritans had prepared as places of worship (see Exeg. on 1 Kings 3:2-3), the images of their gods. Selden (De Diis Syr. ii. 7) understands ρֻ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ϊαְּ ?πεֹ ?ϊ in the literal meaning of the words: “Daughter=huts,” and most of the expositors since his time have followed him in this interpretation. It is then understood to refer to the huts or tents in which the young women prostituted themselves in honor of Mylitta, i.e. Venus, a custom which Herodotus speaks of, i. 199. However, this is clearly against the context, for, whereas 2 Kings 17:29 treats of the places of worship, 2 Kings 17:30 gives the names of the gods whose images were set up in them. Succoth-Benoth is the first-mentioned amongst these. It is not, therefore, an appellative any more than the following names: Nergal, Asima, Nibhaz, and Tartak. The old versions all give it as a proper name. The Sept. have τὴνΣωκχὼθΒανώθ or Βενίθ They therefore understood by it a female divinity. “ρִ ?λּ ?εּ ?ϊ (Amos 5:26) was the name of a female divinity, αְּ ?πεֹ ?ϊ and αֶּ ?πִ ?ιϊ appears only to contain a modification of it. Neither word is to be referred to a Hebrew etymology” (Fόrst). We must not, therefore, understand it as referring to “little temples or shrines which were worshipped, together with the image which they contained” (Gesenius), but to the image of a particular divinity of which we know nothing further. The rabbis assert that it was a hen with her chickens, representing the constellation of the “Clucking Hen” [the Pleiades]. This is possible, but no further proofs of it can be produced. Movers’ interpretation of it, as female genitals, is entirely without foundation. The passage 2 Kings 23:7, which is often referred to for the above-mentioned ordinary interpretation, has no pertinency here. [For an exhaustive summary of the different interpretations of these words heretofore offered, see Herzog’s Encyc. XV. s. 253. The Babylonian goddess Bilit or Mylitta (see note on 2 Kings 17:17) took two forms, just as Venus did in the classical mythology. The one, Taauth, was austere, the other, Nana or Zarpanit, was voluptuous. She had a temple at Babylon, where every woman was forced, once in her life-time, to surrender to a stranger as an act of worship to the goddess. At Cutha she was worshipped as Succoth-benoth, a name referring to these prostitutions. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ THIRD PERIOD(727–588 b.c.) THE IN JUDAH AFTER THE FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL(2 Kings 18-25)FIRST SECTION the monarchy under hezekiah (2 Kings 18-20)A.—The Reign of Hezekiah; the Invasion by Sennacherib, and Deliverance from it2 Kings 18, 19 (Isaiah 36, 37)1Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign [became king]. 2Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign [became king]; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. 3And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that David his father did. 4He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves [Astarte-statues], and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he [they] called it Nehushtan. 5He trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. 6For he clave to the Lord, and departed not [did not swerve] from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses. 7And the Lord was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth [in all his goings-forth;—i.e., in everything which he went out to do]: and [omit and—Insert—] he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not. [;] [and] 8He smote the Philistines, even unto Gaza, and the borders thereof, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city. 9And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it. 10And at the end of three years they took it: even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken. 11And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in [on the] Habor [,] by 12the river of [omit of] Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes [Media]: Because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded, and would not hear them, nor do them. 13Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them. 14And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended [erred]; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto [put upon] Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. 15And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house. 16At that time did Hezekiah cut off [strip] the gold from [omit the gold from] the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from [omit from] the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it [them] to the king of Assyria. 17And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rab-shakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem: and they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller’s field. 18And when they had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the 19son of Asaph the recorder. And Rab-shakeh said unto them, Speak ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest? 20Thou sayest, (but they are but [omit they are but] vain words, [it is a saying of the lips only]) [:] I have [There is] counsel and strength for the war. Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me? 21Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt unto all that trust on him. 22But if ye say unto me, We trust in the Lord our God: is not that he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and hath said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem? 23Now therefore, I pray thee, give pledges to [make a bargain with] my lord the king of Assyria, and I will deliver thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them. 24How then wilt thou turn away the face of [i.e., repulse, put to flight] one captain of [amongst] the least of my master’s servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? 25Am I now come up without the Lord [uninstigated by Jehovah] against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it. 26Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rab-shakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jews’ 27language in the ears of the people that are on the wall. But Rab-shakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may 28eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? Then Rab-shakeh stood and cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language, and spake, saying, Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria: 29Thus saith the king, Let not Hezekiah deceive you: for he shall not be able to deliver you out of his [my] hand: 30Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord, saying, The Lord will surely deliver us, and this city shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria. 31Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement [terms,] with me by a present [omit by a present], and come out to me, and then eat ye every man of his own vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his cistern: 32Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of oil olive and of honey, that ye may live, and not die: and hearken not unto Hezekiah, when he persuadeth you, saying, The Lord will 33deliver us. Hath [Have] any of [omit any of] the gods of the nations delivered at all [omit at all] [each] his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? 34Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand [that 35any delivered Samaria out of mine hand ]? Who are they [there] among all the gods of the countries, that have delivered their country out of mine hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of mine hand? 36But the people held their peace, and answered him not a word: for the king’s commandment was, saying, Answer him not. 37Then came Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes rent, and told him the words of Rab- 2 Kings 19:1 shakeh. And it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the Lord. 2And he sent Eliakim, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, to Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz. 3And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble [distress], and of rebuke [chastisement], and blasphemy [rejection]; for the children are come to the birth [opening of the womb], and there is not strength to bring forth. 4It may be the Lord thy God will hear all the words of Rab-shakeh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach [blaspheme] the living God; and will reprove the words which the Lord thy 5God hath heard: wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that are left. So the servants of king Hezekiah came to Isaiah 6 And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say to your master, Thus saith the Lord, Be not afraid of the words which thou hast heard, with which the servants [minions] of the king 7of Assyria have blasphemed me. Behold I will send a blast upon him [I will inspire him with such a spirit that], and [when—omit and] he shall hear a rumour, and [he—omit and] shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. 8So Rab-shakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah: for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish. 9And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee; he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah, saying, 10Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying, Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria. 11Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by 12[in] destroying them utterly: and shalt thou be delivered? Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed; as Gozan, and 13Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which were in Thelasar? Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arpad, and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivah? 14And Hezekiah received the letter of the hand of the messengers, and read it: and Hezekiah went up into the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord. 15And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord, and said, O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubim, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth. 16Lord, bow down thine ear, and hear: open, Lord, thine eyes, and see: and hear the words of Sennacherib, which [he] hath sent him [omit him] to reproach the living God. 17Of a truth, Lord, the kings of Assyria have destroyed the nations and their lands, 18And have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed them. 19Now therefore, O Lord our God, I beseech thee, save thou us out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord God, even thou only. 20Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, That which thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib 21king of Assyria I have heard. This is the word that the Lord hath spoken concerning him: [oracle of god in regard to the impending danger.][I. Scornful Rebuke of Sennacherib’s Boast.] She despises thee, she scorns thee,—the virgin daughter, Zion! She wags her head at thee, the daughter, Jerusalem! 22Whom hast thou insulted and blasphemed? against whom hast thou lifted voice? Thou hast even lifted thine eyes on high against the Holy One of Israel! 23Through thy messengers thou hast insulted the Lord, and hast said: “I come up with my chariots on chariots to the top of the mountains, to Lebanon’s summit; And I hew down its loftiest cedars and its choicest cypresses; And I come to its summit as a resting-place, To its forest-grove. 24I dig, and I drink the waters of foreign nations; Yea! I parch up with the sole of my foot all the rivers of Egypt!” [II Refutation of his Self-assumption.] 25Hast thou not heard?—Of old time I made it— From ancient days I ordained its course; Now. I have brought it to pass,— And thou art [my instrument] to reduce fortified cities to heaps of ruins. 26Therefore their inhabitants were short-handed; They despaired and were terror-stricken; They were grass of the field and green herb; Grass of the house-top, and corn blasted in the germ. 27So, thy resting in peace, and thy going out, and thy coming in, I know;Also thy violent rage against me; 28For thy violent rage and thine arrogance are come up into mine ears, And I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, And I will lead thee back by the way by which thou camest. [III. Encouragement to Judah and Hezekiah.] 29And this be the sign to thee:— Eating one year what springs of itself from the leavings of the previous crop, And the second year the wild growth, And the third year sow, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat their fruit. 30And the surviving remnant of the house of Judah shall take root again downwards, And shall bear fruit again upwards; 31For from Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and from Mount Zion a rescued band:— The zeal of Jehovah (of Hosts) shall do this! [IV. Gods Decree in regard to the Crisis.] 32Therefore, thus saith the Eternal in regard to the king of Assyria:— He shall not come against this city, Nor shoot an arrow there, Nor assault it with a shield, Nor throw up a siege wall against it. 33By the way by which he came he shall return, And he shall not come against this city;—is the decree of the Eternal; 34But I will protect this city to save it, For mine own sake and for the sake of David, my servant. 35And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, beheld, they were all dead [,] corpses. 36So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. 37And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons14 smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia [Ararat]. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead. Preliminary Remarks.—We have, besides the narrative before us in 2 Kings 18, 19, , 20, two other accounts of Hezekiah’s reign, one in Isaiah 36-39, and the other in 2 Chronicles 29-32 To these authorities may be added some of the prophecies, especially of Isaiah, who had great influence at this time. The first question which arises, therefore, is this: what relation do these various accounts bear to one another? a) The narrative in Isaiah , 36-39, agrees with the one before us from 2 Kings 18:13 on, with the exception of a few subordinate details, so literally, that the two cannot possibly have been produced by different authors independently of one another. The question is: whether the one served as the original of the other? or, whether both were derived independently from the same source? Different opinions are maintained in answer to these questions, but it is not necessary here to enter into a careful examination of them in detail. We limit ourselves to general and necessary considerations. Gesenius (Commen. zum Jesai. II. s. 392 sq.), following Eichhorn, sought to show in detail that the account before us is the original, and that the one in Isaiah is borrowed from it. De Wette, Maurer, Kφster, Winer, and others take the same view. The chief ground for this opinion is that the text in Isaiah is comparatively more condensed, that it presents common and simple words in the place of those in the text which are rare and obscure, and that forms which belong to the later usage of the language appear in it. On the contrary, Grotius, Vitringa, Paulus, Hendewerk, and, most recently, Drechsler, have asserted the originality and priority of the account in Isaiah. In proof of this they bring forward the following considerations: The account in Isaiah cannot be borrowed from that in Kings because it contains Hezekiah’s long and highly important hymn of gratitude (Isaiah 38:9-20), which is entirely wanting in the latter: The language in Kings is the “more careless dialect of common life,” the style is “inferior,” while the version in Isaiah is more rich, “more correct, and more elegant.” When the opinions in regard to the style and language of the two versions are so diverse, it is impossible to deduce any arguments from this consideration for the priority of either. The truth is, as will appear from the detailed exegesis, that, as far as expression and language are concerned, sometimes one and sometimes the other version is to be preferred. The omissions are more important. The account in Isaiah cannot be borrowed from that in Kings on account of the hymn of Hezekiah; but it is just as certain that the account in Kings is not based upon that in Isaiah, for it contains additions which cannot be regarded as simple assumptions of the redactor; such, for instance, as the passages 2 Kings 18:14-15, and especially 2 Kings 20:7-11, compared with Isaiah 38:7-8; Isaiah 38:21-22. In view of the omissions which occur sometimes in one account and sometimes in the other, the majority of the modern expositors, Rosenmόller, Hitzig, Umbreit, Knobel, Ewald, Thenius, Von Gerlach, Keil, suppose that both narratives are borrowed from a common source which we no longer possess. This seems to us also to be the correct view, though we cannot agree in the opinion that the “Annals of the Kingdom” were the common source, for both accounts bear the character of prophetical, and not of mere civil, historical records. The source was more probably that collection of histories of the separate reigns, composed by different prophets, of which we spoke in the Introduction § 3. According to 2 Chronicles 32:33, Isaiah was the author of the history of Hezekiah, which had a place in this collection. Neither this narrative, therefore, nor the one in Isaiah 36-39, is Isaiah’s original composition, but both are borrowed from this, which, unfortunately, we no longer possess. Both come from Isaiah originally, but neither reproduces accurately and fully the original account. Sometimes one and sometimes the other approaches nearer to the original. This view is, on the whole, the one which the editors of Drechsler’s Commentar zu Jesaia (II. s. 151 sq.), Delitsch and Hahn, and the former also in his own Comm. zu Jes. (s. 24, 351 sq.), maintain. But they evidently contradict themselves when they admit, on the one hand, “that the text in the book of Kings is, in many cases, and, perhaps, in the most, to be preferred to that in Isaiah,” and yet, on the other hand, assert that “the author of the book of Kings cannot have obtained the parallel account 18:13–20, 19. from any other source than the book of Isaiah.” It is true that Delitsch appeals again and again to the relation between Jer. chap. 52. and 2 Kings 24:18, sq. and chap. 25. as “an analogous proof that the text of a passage may be more faithfully preserved in the secondary recension than in the original one, from which it was borrowed;” but, although it is possible to render a pure fountain impure, it is impossible that a pure stream should flow from a more or less impure fountain. How, then, can a secondary text be better and purer than the primary one? [The author agrees with the authorities mentioned above that both the accounts are borrowed from a third document as their source. Neither one of the accounts, therefore, as we have them, can be said to have superior claims to the other, as the primary recension. No one will deny that the ultimate human source of the words of the oracle was the brain and lips of Isaiah. Whether he himself collected and arranged his prophecies in the form in which we have them, is a question to be treated in its proper place. If we assume that he did, then it is indeed fair to suppose, wherever any doubt arises, that he cited his own words more accurately than another could do it. But now we have to take account of the history of the two texts since they left the hands of those who put the book of Kings and the book of Isaiah in the form in which they have come down to us—whoever they may have been. In the course of time the primary recension may have been copied more frequently, and by other means also have incurred more corruptions than a recension which, in the first place, was a secondary one. This is what Drechsler means when he says that a secondary recension may have retained the text until our time in a purer form than the primary recension. An element is here introduced which interferes materially with any apriori claim to superior weight which either the one or the other of the texts before us may make, as having come more directly from the hand of the original author. We are thrown back upon the critical examination of each individual variant in each account to determine which reading is more probably the “original” and correct one. The question which text presents, in the most cases, the preferable reading, is one which can only be decided by reviewing the results of these separate critical investigations.—W. G. S.] Nevertheless, we believe that the version in Isaiah was written earlier than the one in Kings, for, whatever opinion one may hold in regard to the time of composition of the second part of Isaiah (chaps, 40–66), no one can assert that the first part (chaps. 1–39.) was not composed before the end of the Babylonian Exile, which is the time of composition of the book of Kings (Introd. § 1). It does not by any means follow that this account was borrowed from Isaiah. The two accounts are independent recensions from the same original. The reason why the same passage occurs in two different books of the Bible is simply this, that in the one it is given for the sake of the prophet, and in the other for the sake of the king. The whole forms an important incident in Isaiah’s work, and an important incident in Hezekiah’s reign, which was an important part of the history of the kings of Judah, on account of the deliverance from Assyria. b) The account in Chronicles condenses into very concise form the contents of the other accounts, but it contains also additions peculiar to itself. It gives (2 Chronicles 29:3 to 2 Chronicles 31:21) detailed descriptions of the rites and ceremonies which Hezekiah prescribed; especially of the Passover which he celebrated. All that has been brought forward against the credibility of this narrative has been refuted by Keil (Apolog. Versuch όber die bibl. Chron. s. 399 sq.). Although it is still asserted that the Chronicler allows himself “to treat the historical facts with more freedom,” yet it is admitted that his account “has the foundation of an exact historical tradition” (Bertheau, Comm. zur Chron. s. 396), and Winer says: “There is, generally speaking, nothing in it which represents the facts and incidents in a manner false to history.” The account before us especially emphasizes the fact, in regard to Hezekiah’s reform in worship, that he abolished idolatry, and even the Jehovah-worship upon the high places. It is a matter of course, however, that the zealously pious king did not stop with the destruction and abolition of the false worship, but also positively put in its place the one which was prescribed in the Law. This the Chronicler states distinctly, and he describes this reformed cultus in detail, in complete consistency with the tendency and stand-point of his work. For him, neither the prophetical institution nor the monarchy stands in the foreground, but the levitical priesthood. While the author of Kings fixes his attention upon the political and theocratic side of the history of Hezekiah’s reign, and writes from the stand-point of the theocracy, the Chronicler fixes his attention upon those incidents of it which were important for the levitical priesthood, and writes from the stand-point of a levite. His statements are, in this case, therefore, an essential addition to the story in Kings and in Isaiah, as indeed his peculiar contributions generally supplement the narratives elsewhere found. The source from which he obtained this information was, as he himself tells us (2 Chronicles 32:32), “the δָ ?ζεֹ ?ο of the prophet Isaiah, the son of Amoz, in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel,” that is to say, the same work to which the author of Kings refers (2 Kings 20:20) for the history of Hezekiah. c) The prophetical oracles in Isaiah and Micha contain, it is true, most important descriptions of the moral and religious state of things at the time when these prophets lived, but no history, in the proper sense of the word. Definite facts, which might supplement the historical narrative, cannot be derived from them, and it is especially vain to attempt this, since, up to the present day, there is no consensus of opinion in regard to whether particular oracles are to be assigned to the time of Hezekiah, or to that of some other king, during whose reign Isaiah also exerted influence. For instance, the first chapter of Isaiah refers, according to some modern critics, to the time of Hezekiah; according to others, to that of Uzziah; according to still others, to that of Jotham; and yet again, according to others, to that of Ahaz. We therefore adhere, in this place, since we have to deal with the firm substance of history, as closely as possible to the historical narratives, and leave it to the exposition of the prophetical books to show to what events, recorded in the historical books, the separate oracles refer. [The author would probably be greatly misunderstood, if any one should infer from this that he estimated as unimportant the light which the prophetic oracles of the Old Testament throw upon the Jewish history. It is one of the unique and most remarkable features of the Old Testament that it presents to us side by side a section of human history, and a criticism of the same from the stand-point of the highest, purest, and most intense religious conviction. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are simple, brief, and dry annals of events and facts. The seventeenth chap of 2d Kings presents a solitary example in which the author comes forward to discuss causes, to weigh principles, and to review the moral forces at work under the events he records. All that we call nowadays the “philosophy of history” is wanting in the strictly historical books. It is supplied by the books of the prophets. They give us an insight into the social and political status, into the vices, the moral forces, the ambitions, and the passions which were at work under the events and produced them. To modern minds the history is not by any means complete until these are elucidated. “History” is not bare events or facts. If it were, we might save ourselves the trouble of ever studying it. It would be a pure matter of curiosity. But history is the fruit of certain moral forces. We study the forces in their fruits. We deduce lessons of warning and encouragement from the study. The forces are the same now as ever since mankind lived upon the earth, and they act, under changed outward circumstances, in the same way. They will produce the same results, and the whole practical value of history is that we may profit by the accumulated experience of mankind, as the individual profits by the mistakes and sufferings of the years through which he has lived. To this end, however, insight into the moral causes of events is the valuable thing, and it is that which we must aim at in studying history. What is peculiar to the prophets of the Old Testament, as such, is that their criticisms of Jewish history were not bare literary or scholarly productions, but appeals, rebukes, and warnings, of the most personal and practical description. That is a characteristic of them which has ethical and perhaps homiletical interest, but does not contribute to our historical knowledge, while their analysis of the social condition under which these events took place, and their statement of the moral causes which produced them, are of the highest importance for the history. These fill up the back-ground, and give the light and shade, and the perspective, to a picture of which the historical books have only sketched the outline. We have a sort of parallel in the works of the ancient orators, which have contributed essentially and undeniably to our knowledge of ancient history. Such being the case, it is evident that any one who undertakes to expound the historical books must give good heed to the light which the prophetical books throw upon them. It is indeed true that it is often very difficult to assign particular oracles to their time and circumstances, but we have only to observe the wonderful light which the oracle before us (2 Kings 19:22-34), and its historical setting, throw upon one another, now that we have them in undoubted juxtaposition, to see what we may hope for, if we can succeed in fixing the connection and relations of other and similar oracles. The light to be derived from the prophecies for the history is not by any means to be lightly set aside, but it is to be regarded as one of the fruits of critical science most highly to be valued, and most earnestly to be labored for.—W. G. S.] AND 2 Kings 18:1. Now it came to pass, &c. It must be carefully observed that 2 Kings 18:1-8 contain a summary account of the entire reign of Hezekiah, like the one given of Ahaz’ reign in 2 Kings 16:1-14. In the first place there is given, as usual, his age, the time of his accession, and the duration of his reign (2 Kings 18:1-2); then, what he did in regard to the Jehovah-worship (2 Kings 18:3-4); then, what spirit animated his life and conduct in general (2 Kings 18:5-6); finally, what successes were won, during his reign, against foreign nations (2 Kings 18:7-8). After this general summary follows, from 2 Kings 18:9 on, the narrative of the chief events during his reign, in chronological order, viz., the overthrow of the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes, in his fourth year (2 Kings 18:9-12), and the oppression of the Assyrians, which began in his fourteenth (2 Kings 18:13 sq.).—In the third year of Hoshea. Since the fourth and sixth years of Hezekiah correspond to the seventh and ninth of Hoshea, according to 2 Kings 18:9-10, it has often been thought that the “third year” in this statement must be incorrect (see Maurer on the passage), and it has been believed that it ought to read “in the fourth year.” Josephus, in fact, has ἕτειδὲ τετάρτῳ. But the explanation is that the years of the two kings do not run exactly parallel. The difficulty is removed, and the text is assured “as soon as we assume that Hoshea came to the throne in the second half of 730, and Hezekiah in the first half of 727, before Hoshea’s third year had expired” (Thenius); or, “If we assume that Hezekiah’s. accession took place near the end of Hoshea’s third year, then his fourth and sixth years correspond, for the most part, with the sixth and ninth of Hoshea” (Keil).—ηִ ?ζְ ?χִ ?ιָּ ?δ is the shortened form for ιְ ?ηִ ?ζְ ?χִ ?ιָּ ?δεּ, which is found in Chronicles, and in 2 Kings 20:10; Isaiah 1:1; Hosea 1:1. In Isaiah 36-39. the name always has the form ηִ ?ζְ ?χִ ?ιָּ ?δεּ. This form is also found several times in Kings. In Micah 1:1. we find ιְ ?ηִ ?ζְ ?χִ ?ιָּ ?δ Gesenius gives, as the signification of the name, “Jehovah’s strength.” Fόrst’s explanation is better: “Jah is Might.” In like manner ΰֲ ?αִ ?ι is shortened from ΰֲ ?αִ ?ιָּ ?δ which is found in Chronicles. Which Zachariah was her father, we cannot determine. 2 Kings 18:4. He removed the high-places. On αָּ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ see notes on 1 Kings 3:2. Here, as in 1 Kings 3:2; 1 Kings 15:12; 1 Kings 15:14, we have not to understand by the Word, places of idolatry, but elevations on which Jehovah was worshipped, in contrast with the temple as the central place of worship. This is clear from 2 Kings 18:22. On the images (probably of stone), and the wooden Astarte-columns, see note on 1 Kings 14:23. Instead of the singular ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψָ ?δ, all the old versions have the plural, which is also found in 2 Chronicles 31:1. Therefore Thenius reads ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψִ ?ιν, but this change is unnecessary. According to Keil the singular is here “used collectively.”—And brake in pieces the brazen serpent, &c. (cf. Numbers 21:5 sq.). It is commonly assumed that this refers to the serpent-image which was made by Moses in the wilderness. Von Gerlach says: “It was perhaps preserved in a side-chamber of the temple as a highly revered treasure and memorial.… In the times of manifold idolatry it had been brought out, and an idolatrous worship had been practised with it.” It is not impossible, in itself, that the image was still in existence after 800 years, and was preserved in the temple as a relic. We have no hint, however, that such was the case, and it is hardly supposable that Moses, who so carefully avoided everything which could nourish the inclination of the people towards idolatry, should have taken this image with him during his entire journey through the wilderness. Moreover, the tabernacle had no side-chamber in which it could have been kept. Even if we suppose that it was still in existence when the temple was built (480 years after the exodus), yet there is no mention of it at all amongst the objects in the tabernacle which Solomon caused to be brought down into the temple (see 1 Kings 8:4); neither is there any mention of the fact that any later king caused it to be brought out and set up where it would be possible for the people to offer incense to it. It is reckoned as a merit in Hezekiah that he caused it to be broken in pieces, but it is hardly probable that he would have been the one to destroy a symbol which had been set up and preserved by the great Law giver himself, and which had survived so long, as a sacred memorial and treasure, all the storms of time. Winer (R.-W.-B. II. s. 415) therefore infers: “The brazen serpent mentioned in 2 Kings cannot be the very one which was set up by Moses.” If the sensuous people wished to see their God and to have an image of Him, scarcely any image would suggest itself more immediately than the one which Moses had himself once made and commanded them to look upon, and of which the people were so directly reminded by their history. In the time of idolatry, therefore, they made an image like the one which Moses had set up, and offered incense to it. The text seems to us not only to admit this supposition, but also, when taken with the context, even to require it. The clause: that Moses had made, distinguishes this image expressly from the statues and images mentioned just before. They had been borrowed from the heathen, but that, though it had been made by Moses in the first place, had been abused for idolatry. Moreover, Moses had not made it with his own hands, but had caused it to be made. This also does away with the oft-repeated assertion that the serpent-worship in Israel had its origin in Egypt, where this cultus was very widespread. The serpent was there the symbol of healing power (Winer, l.c.), whereas in the book of Numbers it is represented as bringing death and destruction, wherefore Moses, who certainly was far enough from intending to thereby set up an image of idolatry, hung up a serpent-image as a sign that it could not bring death to those who, with faith in Jehovah’s death-conquering power, should look up to it.—Unto those days, i.e., not from Moses’ time on uninterruptedly until the time of Hezekiah; but “from time to time, and the idolatrous worship which was practised with this image continued until Hezekiah’s time” (Keil). The subject of ειχψΰ is not Hezekiah, as the Vulg. and Clericus understand, but Israel. Sept. ἐκάλεσαν. [It is better to take it as a singular with indefinite subject (one called) = they called, or it was called. See note 1 under Grammatical.] The name πְ ?ηֻ ?ωְׁ ?ϊָּ ?ο, i.e., “a brazen thing,” shows that the “brass” was not an accidental circumstance in the construction of this image, but was essential, perhaps on account of its glowing-red color, in which it resembled the “fiery” serpents (Numbers 21:6; Deuteronomy 8:15; cf. Revelation 1:15), whose bite burned and consumed. πְ ?ηֻ ?ωְׁ ?ϊָּ ?ο, therefore, meant, The Glowing-red One, The Consuming One, The Burning One. There is no contemptuous sense in it, such as: “A little bit of brass,” as those think who assume that Hezekiah is the subject (Dereser). Still less is it correct that the image had that name only in contrast with the other idols which were of wood or stone. Neither is the designation: “The so-called Brass-God” (Ewald), an apt rendering of the word.—The sentence in 2 Kings 18:5 : After him was none like him, &c. has been incorrectly understood as a proverbial form of expression for something which is very rare, the parallel of which is not on record. It “is not in contradiction with chap, 23:25, for its application must be restricted to the single characteristic of trust in God. In this particular Hezekiah showed himself the strongest, whereas, in 23:25, strict fidelity to the (Mosaic) Law is applauded in Josiah” (Thenius).—He clave to the Lord (2 Kings 18:6). This appeared from the fact that he never gave himself up to idolatry, but kept the commandments of God. 2 Kings 18:7. And the Lord was with him, &c. ιַ ?ωְׂ ?λִּ ?ιμִּ has exactly the same sense as in 1 Kings 2:3. The words αְּ ?λָ ?μεβε are not to be translated as by Luther and De Wette [and the E. V.]: “Whithersoever he went forth,” but, as by the vulg.: in cunctis, ad qu� procedebat. His prosperity appeared in two points; in his escape from the Assyrian supremacy, under which Judah had disgracefully fallen during Ahaz, reign (2 Kings 16:7); and in his war against the Philistines, who had, during Ahaz, reign, made conquests in Judah (2 Chronicles 28:18). Luther’s translation, Dazu [d. i. ausserdem] ward er” [Moreover he rebelled], destroys the connection of thought. The ε before ιִ ?ξְ ?ψֹ ?γ is the simple copula, and is equivalent to the German nδmlich [that is to say, or, for instance]. As those two facts only are mentioned here as instances of his prosperity, we must not infer from their position in the story that they took place at the outset of his reign. It is to be observed that his revolt from Assyria is not mentioned here as something blameworthy, but as something which redounded to his praise. The apostate Ahaz subjected the kingdom to Assyria; Hezekiah, who was faithful to Jehovah, made himself independent of the Assyrian yoke. As to the time at which he resolved to do this, see note on 2 Kings 18:13. 2 Kings 18:9. And it came to pass in the fourth year of King Hezekiah, &c. 2 Kings 18:9-12 repeat what has been already narrated in 2 Kings 17:3-6. This is due, according to Thenius, to the fact that the author found these words not only in the annals of Israel, but also in those of Judah, and that he reproduces his authorities with “complete fidelity.” But the repetition cannot be due to any such merely mechanical procedure; it has a further and deeper cause. In the first place, the overthrow of Samaria was an event of the highest importance for Judah also, and it deserved especial mention here on account of the contrast with 2 Kings 18:1-8. Hezekiah carried out a reformation in his kingdom. He remained faithful to the Lord, and he succeeded in what he undertook. Israel, on the contrary, had come into conflict with the Assyrian power. The king of Assyria, encouraged and stimulated by his success in this conflict, now turned his arms against Judah. But this kingdom, although it was weaker and smaller, did not fall, because Hezekiah trusted in the Lord. This is what the historian desired to show by the repetition, so that it is exactly in its right place between 2 Kings 18:8; 2 Kings 18:13.—For the detailed exposition of 2 Kings 18:9-12, see notes on 2 Kings 17:3 sq.2 Kings 18:13. Now in the fourteenth year… did Sennacherib… come up, &c. Herodotus calls this king Ζαναχάριβος; Josephus, Σεναχήριβος. Nothing but guesses, which we do not need to notice, have yet been brought forward in regard to the signification of this name. [The true form of the name is Sin-akhe-rib, and it means: “Sin (the Moon-god) has multiplied brothers.”—Lenormant.] Sennacherib was the immediate successor of Shalmaneser, for Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) is, as was remarked above on 2 Kings 17:3, one and the same person with Shalmaneser. [For a correction of this error see the Supplementary Note after the Exeg. section on chap 17, and also the similar note at the end of this present section.] Delitsch (on Isaiah 20:1) has lately once more denied this on the authority of the Assyrian inscription published by Oppert and Rawlinson, and has ventured this assertion: “He [Sargon], and not Shalmaneser, took ‘Samaria after a three years’ siege.… Shalmaneser died before Samaria, and Sargon not only assumed command of the army, but also seized the reins of power, and, after a conflict of several years’ duration with the legitimate heirs and their party, he succeeded in establishing himself upon the throne. He was, therefore, a usurper.” The biblical text is wholly silent in regard to all this; nay, it even contradicts it. For the “king of Assyria” mentioned in 2 Kings 17:4-6, is necessarily the same one who is mentioned in 2 Kings 18:3 just before, viz., Shalmaneser. It is impossible to insert another king, and he a usurper, between these four successive verses. If Sargon was a different person from Shalmaneser, the statements of the biblical text in 2 Kings 17:3-6 are incorrect; if these are correct, then either the Assyrian inscriptions are incorrect, or they are incorrectly read and interpreted. Sennacherib would hardly have called his predecessors his “fathers,” if the supposititious Sargon had been a usurper who had come to the throne by the overthrow of the reigning dynasty. [The reading and interpretation of the cuneiform inscriptions cannot yet, it is true, be regarded as beyond all question, yet there are certain results which are now placed beyond doubt. They constitute the highest authority for Assyrian history, and by them nothing is more satisfactorily established than the fact that Sargon succeeded Shalmaneser and was a usurper, and Sennacherib was his son. The above quotation from Delitsch correctly states the facts of the case. If the inscriptions are not correctly interpreted it remains for those who are competent to do so to make the necessary corrections; but those who have not mastered the subject (and it is a very difficult one) are not justified in treating the authority of Assyrian scholars with neglect and contempt, even upon the supposed authority of the biblical text. The author of the book of Kings was an inhabitant of Judah. Before the time of Sennacherib this kingdom had had very little to do with Assyria. Even Israel knew “the king of Assyria” only as an enemy, the head and representative of the great and threatening world-monarchy. They did not fear Shalmaneser or Sargon as individuals; they feared the head of the hostile nation, “the king of Assyria.” Shalmaneser was celebrated for his campaign against Tyre as an individual who bore this dreaded title. If, as is supposed, he began the siege of Samaria, but died during it, and if Sargon finished it, but then returned to Assyria to secure his usurped power—(Rawlinson seems to think that he was not at Samaria, but took advantage of the discontent of the people of Nineveh at Shalmaneser’s long absence to raise a rebellion against him, and then counted among the great deeds of his first year the conquest of Samaria, which Shalmaneser, or his generals, had nearly accomplished)—then it is not strange that his name is not mentioned here among those individuals who were known to the author of these books to have worn the crown of Assyria. Sennacherib was his son, and again so far from his mention of “his fathers” being an argument that he was not the son of a usurper, it is rather in character for such a person to boast of his ancestors, to try to obliterate the recollection of his origin and title to the throne, and to endeavor to avail himself of the prestige of the old dynasty. The Bible is silent in regard to all this, it is true, but it is generally silent in regard to contemporaneous Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek history. Of China, India, and Arabia it tells us nothing. For our knowledge of these things we are thrown upon the proper authorities. The silence of the Bible is no disparagement of the Bible, and no argument against the conclusions to which we may be led by such separate national authorities as we possess. For the facts in regard to the question here before us, as they appear from the Assyrian inscriptions, see the Supplementary Note at the end of this Exeg. section, and for a list of the Assyrian kings, with the dates of their reigns, see the right-hand column of the Chronological Table at the end of the volume—W. G. S.] The fourteenth year of Hezekiah, who became king in 727, is the year 713. The fall of Samaria took place in 721 (see the Chron. Table). How long after that Shalmaneser reigned cannot be determined [by biblical data]. The ordinary opinion that he lived until 718, and that Sargon reigned from 718 to 715 or 714, falls to the ground when the identity of the two is established. Sennacherib seems to have reigned a year or two before he undertook the great expedition. Probably the change of occupant of the throne of Assyria had encouraged Hezekiah to make himself independent of the oppressor (2 Kings 18:7). It is not likely, as Niebuhr supposes, that he attempted this soon after his accession, for then Shalmaneser would not have retired from Samaria in 721 without chastising him for this revolt. It is not especially stated what caused the expedition of Sennacherib, but it certainly was not the revolt of Hezekiah alone. It was an expedition of conquest, directed especially against Egypt, which was then the great rival of Assyria, under whose protection the small kingdoms of Western Asia ranged themselves against Assyria. We do not know certainly whether Hezekiah entered into an alliance with Egypt after he revolted from Assyria. It is clear from Isaiah 3:1; Isaiah 31:1, compared with 2 Kings 18:21; 2 Kings 18:24 of this chapter, that the authorities at Jerusalem were much inclined to this course, and that they had taken preliminary steps towards it. We shall recur to the subject of Sennacherib’s expedition against Egypt below, at the end of the Exegetical notes. [See the Supplem. Note after this Exeg. section. The facts, as established by the inscriptions, are there briefly stated. All that is said above about the relations of Jewish and Assyrian history must be corrected by what is stated in the Note below.]—Against all the fenced cities of Judah, &c. The statement in Chronicles is more accurate: “He encamped against the fenced cities and thought to win them for himself” (2 Chronicles 32:1). It is clear from 19:8 that he did not take them all. When he approached with his great army, Hezekiah armed himself to resist, and, as he could not risk a battle in the open field, he set Jerusalem in the best possible condition for defence (2 Chronicles 32:2 sq.; Isaiah 22:9-10). 2 Kings 18:14. And Hezekiah… sent to the king of Assyria, &c. 2 Kings 18:14-16 are entirely wanting in Isaiah, and are an important addition to the narrative there given. They are evidently taken from the common source. They are not, therefore, “a mere annalistic insertion” (Delitsch). The text of Isaiah is here condensed as it is in the following verse (17), where he only mentions Rab-shakeh, and says nothing about Rabsaris and Tartan.—Lachish, whither Hezekiah sent his messengers, was fifteen or eighteen hours’ journey south west of Jerusalem on the road to Egypt (see note on 2 Kings 14:19). Sennacherib had, therefore, already passed Jerusalem on his way to Egypt. “The possession of this city was, on account of its position, a matter of great importance to an army which was invading Egypt” (Thenius). Hezekiah, therefore, had grounds for extreme anxiety, more especially as there was no sign of movement on the part of any Egyptian force to meet Sennacherib, and Judah seemed to have been abandoned by Egypt. He determined to try to make terms with the powerful enemy, and rather to submit to a heavy tribute in money than to risk the possession of his capital and the independence of his kingdom. ηָ ?θָ ?ΰϊִ ?ι does not mean: I have sinned against God by my revolt from thee (that would require that μַ ?ιδεָֹ ?δ should be added, as we find it Genesis 13:13; Genesis 39:9; 1 Samuel 7:6; 2 Samuel 12:13 and elsewhere); nor, as the ancient expositors supposed: I have, in thy opinion, sinned; nor, imprudenter egi. We have simply to adhere to its original signification, to fail, to err (Job 5:24; Proverbs 19:2). “It is an acknowledgment wrung from him by his distressed circumstances” (Thenius). Hezekiah admits, in view of the great danger to which he has exposed himself and his kingdom, that he has committed an error.—The sum which Sennacherib demanded was certainly a very large one. Thenius estimates it at one and a half million thalers ($1,080,000), and Keil at two and a half million thalers ($1,800,000). The reduction to terms of our modern money is very uncertain. The fact that Hezekiah stripped off the metal which he had himself put upon the door-casings shows how difficult it was for him to raise this sum. 2 Kings 18:17. And the king of Assyria sent Tartan, &c. Josephus thus states the connection between 2 Kings 18:16-17. Sennacherib had promised the ambassadors of Hezekiah that he would abstain from all hostilities against Jerusalem, if he received the sum which he had demanded. Hezekiah, trusting in this, had paid it, and now believed. himself to be free from all danger. Sennacherib, however, “did not trouble himself about his promise. He marched in person against the Egyptians and Ethiopians, but he left the general (στρατηγόν) Rab-shakeh, with two other high officers (σὺνδυσὶνἄλλοιςτῶνἐντέλει) and a large force to destroy Jerusalem.” This undoubtedly fills up correctly the omission of the biblical text. The two last of these names are clearly official titles, but the first is not a proper name. See Jeremiah 39:3; Jeremiah 39:13, where these titles stand by the side of the proper names. ϊַּ ?ψְ ?ϊָּ ?ο is the title of the general or military commander, as we see from Isaiah 20:1. Probably it is equivalent to ψַ ?αΞθַ ?αָּ ?ηִ ?ιν (2 Kings 25:8; Jeremiah 39:9; Genesis 37:36), captain of the life-guard. We pass, without discussion, Hitzig’s suggestion that the title is of Persian origin and means, “Skull of the body,” that is, “Person of high rank.” ψַ ?αΞρָ ?ψִ ?ιν is the chief of the eunuchs, who, however, was not himself a eunuch (2 Kings 25:19; cf. Genesis 37:36; Genesis 39:1; Genesis 39:7; Daniel 1:3; Daniel 1:7). This officer is now one of the highest at the Turkish court (Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 654). All the officers and servants of the court were under his command. ψַ ?αωָׁ ?χֵ ?δ is the chief cup-bearer, who is more distinctly designated in Genesis 40:2; Genesis 40:21 as ωַׂ ?ψΞδַ ?ξַּ ?ωְׁ ?χִ ?ιν. This was also a post of high honor at Oriental courts. Nehemiah once filled it (Nehemiah 1:11; Nehemiah 2:1). These court dignitaries were at the same time the highest civil and military officers (cf. Brissonius de regno Pers. i. p. 66, 138. Gesenius on Isaiah 36:2). Sennacherib sent three such officers in order to give importance to the matter.—The upper pool is the one called Gihon (2 Chronicles 32:30; 1 Kings 1:33) outside of the city, on the west side. A canal ran from this to the field of the fullers or washers, which, partly on account of the impurity of the water collected in the pool, and partly on account of the uncleanliness of that occupation, was outside of the city. The same designation of this locality is found in Isaiah 7:3, from which it is clear that this canal existed in the time of Ahaz and earlier, and is not the one mentioned in 2 Chronicles 32:30.—And when they had called to the king, &c, i.e., “They made known to those upon the wall their desire to speak with the king. He, however, did not yield to their demand to speak with him in person, not, as Josephus thinks, ὑπὸ δειλίας, but because it was beneath his dignity. The chief officers of the king appeared” (Thenius). On the offices which they filled, see notes on 1 Kings 4:3 sq. From Isaiah 22:15-22 it is commonly inferred that Shebna, who there appears as the officer ςַ ?μΞδַ ?αַּ ?ιִ ?ϊ, but is threatened with deposition from that office, had been degraded to a ρֹ ?τֵ ?ψ, in which rank he appears here, and that Eliakim had been put in his place. Other expositors, Vitringa for instance, will not admit that he is the same person. It is at best very uncertain. Nothing can be inferred from this in regard to the comparative rank of these officers, for in 1 Kings 4:3 sq. the Sopher and the Maskir stand before the Master of the Palace. 2 Kings 18:19. And Rab-shakeh said unto them, &c Probably he was more familiar with the Hebrew language (2 Kings 18:26) than either of the others, and otherwise better fitted to be spokesman. The rabbis falsely consider him an apostate Israelite and even a son of Isaiah.—Rab-shakeh calls his king “the great king,” because he had kings for his vassals, Isaiah 10:8; Hosea 8:10. Cf. Ezekiel 26:7; Daniel 2:37, where Nebuchadnezzar is called a “king of kings.” In Ezra 7:12, the name is applied to the Persian king.—αִּ ?θָּ ?ηεֹ ?ο does not mean defiance (Bunsen: “What is this defiant confidence with which thou defiest”?), but confidence, reliance: cf. αθη in ver 5. The question does not contain a rebuke (Gesen.: qualis est fiducia ista: i. e., quam insanis ea est); but rather astonishment. “What reliance hast thou that thou darest to revolt from me? I look about in vain for any satisfactory answer to this question” (Drechsler).—ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ϊָּ in 2 Kings 18:20 is to be preferred to ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ι in Isaiah. A saying of the lips only is not object: “Thou speakest but a word of the lips [when thou sayest]: counsel and strength, &c.” (Knobel). Still less is the sense: “Thou thinkest that my words are only empty talk.” The sense is rather: “Thou sayest” (it is, however, no well-considered expression of a conviction, but a mere pronunciation of the lips) “counsel and strength,” &c, cf. Proverbs 14:23; Job 11:2. The Vulg. translates very arbitrarily: Forsitan inisti consilium, ut pr�pares te ad pr�lium. 2 Kings 18:21 is not a question (Vulg. Luther). Rab-shakeh himself gives the answer to his own question in 2 Kings 18:20, and “affirms roundly that Judah is in alliance with Assyria’s arch-enemy, Egypt” (Knobel). The image of the staff (ξִ ?ωְׁ ?ςֶ ?πֶ ?ϊ, cf. Isaiah 3:1) of a reed is a very striking one. As it is used also in Ezekiel 29:6 in reference to Egypt, it evidently is suggested by the fact that the Nile, the representative river of Egypt, produced quantities of reeds (Isaiah 19:6). The reed, which at best has a feeble stem, bent hither and thither by the wind, is moreover “bruised,” so that, although it appears to be whole, yet it breaks all the more easily when one leans upon it, and moreover, its fragments penetrate the hand and wound it (cf. Isaiah 42:3, where ψφυ and ωׁ ?αψ are accurately distinguished from one another). [For ψφυ, Germ, knicken, we have no precise equivalent. It is a kind of breaking which applies peculiarly to green reeds. The stem may be broken in such a way as to destroy its rigidity, its power to sustain any weight upright, and yet the tenacity of the fibre is such that the parts hold together, and the external form is maintained. A reed is not available as a staff under any circumstances. One which has been thus impaired will give way at once under any weight.—W. G. S.] Thenius: “Sennacherib compared Egypt to a reed thus snapped or bent, not because he had broken the Egyptian power, but because, in his arrogance, he regarded it already as good as broken.” Delitsch thinks that he calls it so “in consequence of the loss of the dominion over Ethiopia, which had been lost by the native dynasty of Egypt (Isaiah 18).” What is here said about Pharaoh agrees exactly with Isaiah 30:1-7. 2 Kings 18:22. But if ye say unto me, &c. In Isaiah 34:7 we find instead of ϊֹ ?ΰξַ ?ψ ,ϊֹּ ?ΰξְ ?ψεּ ?ο thou sayest. Keil considers this the original reading, because in 2 Kings 18:23 sq. Hezekiah is once more directly addressed in his ambassadors. The majority, however, from Vitringa on, are in favor of ϊֹּ ?ΰξψְ ?εּ ?ο, because Hezekiah is immediately afterwards referred to in the third person. In this case the words are not addressed simply to the ambassadors but to the entire people. Thenius takes the question, Is not that he, &c., as a continuation of the speech of those who trust in Jehovah, and who thus refer to Hezekiah’s zeal for the centralization of the national cultus as a ground for hoping for God’s help. But 2 Chronicles 32:12 is opposed to this notion. According to that passage the words are an objection raised by Rab-shakeh in order to overthrow the confidence of the people, and thus they are understood by nearly all the commentators, ancient and modern. The conclusion of the speech, 2 Kings 18:25, requires the same interpretation. The argument is: God is not with the one who has removed His altars and restricted His worship to one single place, but with the one who, at His command, has taken possession of the country, and has already won such great success. Rab-shakeh desires to inspire them with suspicion of Hezekiah, who, according to 2 Kings 18:30 and 2 Chronicles 32:7, had encouraged them to trust in Jehovah. He knew how much the people were accustomed to the worship on the high-places, and how much more convenient it was for them. 2 Kings 18:23. Now, therefore, make a bargain with, &c. εְ ?ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ i e., Take account, moreover, of the lack of a proper military force, of which cavalry forms an important part. δִ ?ϊְ ?ςָ ?ψֵ ?α does not mean: “Promise to my Lord” (Luther), nor, “lay a wager with my Lord” (Bunsen, Von Meyer). ςψα means to change, exchange, barter (Ezekiel 27:9; Ezekiel 27:21). In the hithpael it means to enter into intercourse with (Psalms 106:35; Proverbs 24:21). The reference here is to a mutual giving and taking, not to entering into a contest (Knobel). The sense is: Even if any one should give thee ever so many horses, thou hast not men who are fit to ride upon and use them. [It is a strong expression of contempt for the military power of the Jews. you talk about opposing me by force, but even if I, your enemy, should furnish you with horses, you could not find men to form cavalry. If you should make terms with me so that I gave you these odds, it would not do you any good.—W. G. S.]. ϊָּ ?ωִׁ ?ια means literally: to cause to face about, i. e., to put to flight. The τַּ ?ηεֹ ?ϊ, the governors of provinces, were likewise commanders in the army in time of war, 1 Kings 20:24 (cf. 22:31); “the least” is the one who commands the smallest number of soldiers. Drechsler’s interpretation seems to us to be entirely mistaken. According to him there is no reference here to war, and δֵ ?ωִׁ ?ια, &c. has the signification: to reject a suppliant, so that the sense is, “He [Hezekiah] will have to concede every demand and yield to every wish which is brought before him by such a person [as one of these governors].”—On the chariots see 1 Kings 10:28 sq.—In 2 Kings 18:25 Rab-shakeh presents the matter in a light exactly contrary to that in which the Jews look at it: So far from thy being justified in relying upon Jehovah, He is, on the contrary, on our side, and it is by His command that we are come hither to destroy Jerusalem. This was, as Clericus says, purum putum mendacium. As an Assyrian he did not believe at all in the God of Israel, but only made use of this form of statement, cf. 2 Kings 18:34-35. It can hardly be that he meant to refer to the successes which the Assyrians had had up to this time as proofs that they were under the guidance and approval of Jehovah (Calmet, Thenius). Still less can we suppose that he “had heard of the declarations of the prophets, who had predicted this distress as a punishment sent by Jehovah” (Knobel, Von Gerlach, Keil, Vitringa and others.) [At the same time, if we impute to Rab-shakeh such a disbelief in the existence of Jehovah as makes his reference to His providence here a pure fiction, merely assumed for the purpose of producing an effect upon the listeners who did believe in Jehovah, we shall introduce, a modern or monotheistic idea into the speech of an ancient heathen and polytheist, to whom it was foreign. The characteristic of the Jewish monotheistic religion was exclusiveness, intolerance. The polytheistic heathen religions did not deny the existence of the national divinities of each separate nation. The fact that Rab-shakeh believed in the Assyrian divinities does not, therefore, exclude all belief on his part in Jehovah. In 2 Kings 18:12 he assumes the existence of gods of the countries mentioned. In 17:26 we have another instance of the usual heathen conception. That was, that every nation had its own divinities. These were conceived of as existing and being true gods, one as much as the other, in all the sense in which heathen ever conceived of gods as truly existing. Each nation held its own god or gods to be greater and mightier than those of other nations, but thought it necessary, especially when in a foreign country, to pay proper respect to the local divinity. Rab-shakeh no doubt went thus far, at least, in his “belief in” Jehovah, and his claim to enjoy the favor of Jehovah was either a pure assumption, good at least until the event contradicted it, or it was founded upon the successes hitherto won, or it took advantage of such prophecies of the Jewish prophets as he may have heard of. Cf. the bracketed note on p. 57 of Pt. II. in regard to Naaman’s idea of Jehovah.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 18:26. Then said Eliakim, &c. As the haughty words of Rab-shakeh, especially what he had last said (2 Kings 18:25), might have a depressing effect upon the soldiers posted on the wall, the king’s ambassadors interrupted him and begged him, in a friendly manner, to speak Syriac. To this he gives a rude answer. ΰֲ ?ψָ ?ξִ ?ιϊ i.e., Syriac,—[more strictly and correctly, Aramaic. The name Syriac is commonly restricted to a later dialect of the Aramaic.—W. G. S.]—“was spoken in ancient times in Syria, Babylonia, and Mesopotamia” (Gesenius). It was “the connecting link between the languages of Eastern [middle] Asia and the Semitic languages of Western Asia” (Drechsler). On account of the intercourse between the Hebrews and these nations, the high court-officials especially were acquainted with Hebrew. The Hebrew and the Aramaic were closely related languages (Ezekiel 4:7). Rab-shakeh spoke Hebrew in this case, not out of politeness, but in order that he might be understood by the listening people, who were not acquainted with any other language. His object was to influence the common people. ςַ ?μ and ΰֶ ?μ in 2 Kings 18:27 have no distinction of meaning. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ B.—Hezekiah’s Illness and Recovery; his Reception of the Babylonian Embassy, and his End2 Kings 20:1-21. (Isaiah 38)1In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live. 2Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the Lord, saying, 3I beseech thee, O Lord, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth [fidelity] and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore. 4And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 5Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain [prince] of my people, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go unto the house of the Lord. 6And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend [protect] this city for my own sake, and for my servant David’s sake. 7And Isaiah said, Take [Bring] a lump of figs. And they took [brought] and laid it on the boil, and he recovered. 8And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be [is] the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the Lord the third day? 9And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? [the shadow is gone forward ten degrees,—if it go back ten degrees?] 10And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees. 11And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in [on] the dial [stairs] of Ahaz. 12At that time Berodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present unto Hezekiah: for he had heard that Hezekiah had been 13[was] sick. And Hezekiah hearkened unto them [rejoiced because of them], and shewed them all the house of his precious things [treasury], the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour [armory], and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed them not. 14Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country, even from Babylon. 15And he said, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All the things that are in mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them. 16And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord. 17Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried unto Babylon: 18nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And [some] of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. 19Then said Hezekiah unto Isaiah, Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken. And he said, Is it not good, if peace and truth be in my days? [And he said: Verily; may there only be peace and security in my days.] 20And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 21And Hezekiah slept with his fathers: and Manasseh his son reigned in his stead. AND 2 Kings 20:1. In those days. By these words Hezekiah’s illness is referred to the time of the last-mentioned events, but only as a general designation of the time of its occurrence (Keil). It fell, like those events, in the middle of his reign. The expositors are not agreed, however, whether it took place before or after Sennacherib’s retreat. The majority of the modern scholars adopt the opinion that it was before that event, founding their opinion on 2 Kings 20:6. There he is promised fifteen years more of life, and Sennacherib’s retreat is spoken of as something which has not yet come to pass. Now, as Hezekiah, according to 2 Kings 18:2, reigned twenty-nine years, and Sennacherib invaded Judah in his fourteenth year (2 Kings 18:13), this illness must have befallen him, it is argued, in his fourteenth year, either “at the beginning of Sennacherib’s invasion” (Keil), or “while the Assyrians were still besieging Jerusalem” (Thenius). It is further alleged in support of this view that Hezekiah showed to the Babylonian embassy, which came to congratulate him, treasures of gold and silver (2 Kings 20:13), but that he had given up everything of this kind which he had (2 Kings 18:15) to Sennacherib, so that his illness and recovery must have taken place before the retreat of the Assyrians (Delitsch and Hahn). These may appear to be very forcible arguments, but there are opposing considerations of the highest importance. In the first place, both narratives put the story of Hezekiah’s illness after the account of the Assyrian invasion, and as Calmet observes: Neque ego libenter desero seriem et ordinem rerum in libris sacris deductam, nisi valida id argumenta suadeant. It has indeed been urged that the historian placed the story of Sennacherib’s retreat (2 Kings 19:35 sq.) first, because “he desired to finish up the story of the Assyrian invasion, so as not to be obliged to return to it” (Knobel). But the Chronicler makes this hypothesis, which is in itself improbable, entirely inadmissible, for he says that Hezekiah was highly honored by all nations on account of this deliverance, and that many sent presents to him, and then he proceeds to give the story of his illness (2 Chronicles 32:22-31). Josephus also asserts very positively that Hezekiah and all the people offered thank-offerings to God, and showed great religious zeal, but that then (μετ’ οὐ πολύ) he was afflicted by a severe illness. Secondly, the Babylonian embassy cannot be assigned to the period before the retreat of Sennacherib, nor to any time during the Assyrian invasion, for the king of Babylon, who was a vassal of the king of Assyria, would not have dared to congratulate Hezekiah at that time when he was in revolt against the suzerain of both, and he would have had no grounds for seeking an alliance with Hezekiah when he was in distress and peril. Thirdly, Hezekiah’s hymn of thanksgiving (Isaiah 38:10) begins with the words: “I said (that is, I thought) in the cutting off (interruption, period of tranquillity) of my days,” &c.; i.e., “when a period of rest had come in my life, a pause in the midst of the ceaseless toil and care and danger of life” (Drechsler); when I believed that I was relieved from all danger by Sennacherib’s retreat, and that I could live on in peace and security, then came a new trouble and danger, and it seemed that I must go down to the grave. Against all these important considerations, which are taken from history, it cannot be argued that “the former story [of the peril of Jerusalem] is placed first because it is most important” (Von Gerlach), for what would become of the art of writing history, if historians should narrate later events before they did earlier ones, because the former were more important? As for 2 Kings 20:6, the number “fifteen” cannot be arithmetically accurate, for if it were so, then not only Sennacherib’s invasion and Hezekiah’s illness, but also the journey of the army of at least 185,000 men through the desert el Tih to Egypt, the siege of Pelusium, the return to Judah, the siege and conquest of the “fenced cities,” the devastation of the country, and finally, the destruction of Sennacherib’s army and his retreat, and even the embassy from Babylon, must all have taken place in one year,—Hezekiah’s fourteenth, and this appears impossible, considering that they had no railways. Isaiah’s words in 2 Kings 20:5-6 are not an historical allusion, but a prophetic oracle. In the prophetic style numbers have not always their strict, arithmetical value, but are clothed with a significance of another character. The number 15, in this case, is not, indeed, as Knobel thinks, “contributed by the redactor, exeventu, and put in the mouth of the prophet, who could not know how many years longer Hezekiah was to live,” but still we ask why should he have just fifteen years longer, and not one more or one less? Fifteen is not what is commonly called a round number. It will not do to answer this by the anticipatory statement (2 Kings 18:2) that Hezekiah reigned twenty-nine years. Not because he was to reign twenty-nine years in all were fifteen years more assigned to him, but because he was spared for fifteen years more his whole reign amounted to twenty-nine years. When he was taken ill he had finished his fourteenth year and begun his fifteenth. He was then thirty-nine years old, in the prime of life. Suddenly he stood on the brink of the grave, and it was all the more painful to him to quit life at this moment, because he had just been delivered from his most powerful enemy, and had hopes of being able to reign now in peace and quiet. It was regarded as a very great misfortune to be called away in the prime of life, hence his earnest prayer (2 Kings 20:3), which had no other sense than this: “O my God! take me not away in the midst of my days” (Psalms 102:24; cf. Psalms 55:23). The prophet promises him the fulfilment of this prayer, and that he shall reign as much longer as he had already reigned. The words which follow: I will deliver thee out of the hand of the king of Assyria, then refer to the remainder of his reign. In the new lease of life which was to be given him, he should fear nothing from the great and mighty enemy; he should reign in peace. This promise was of the greatest importance, for, although Sennacherib had fled in disgrace, yet he was still very powerful and very dangerous, and his wrath against Judah was fiercer than ever (Tobias 2 Kings 1:18). He might collect his forces and make another expedition against Judah. In fact, he did immediately collect an army and march against Babylon which had revolted. Thus the words are understood by Vitringa, Clericus, Gesenius, Rosenmόller, and Drechsler, and the latter adds the pertinent remark that, if 2 Kings 20:6 had been spoken before the events narrated in chaps. 18 and 19 took place, then 2 Kings 19:34 would be only a repetition of the promise in that verse. 2 Kings 20:1. Thus saith the Lord: Set thine house in order; literally: Give commands in regard to thine house, i.e., take the necessary measures for the management of thine affairs (cf. 2 Samuel 17:23, where ΰֶ ?μ stands for μְ). It does not mean “make known thy (last) will” (Knobel, Gesenius), nor, “give commands in regard to the succession to the throne”(Hess).—To the wall (2 Kings 20:2), not in dissatisfaction as Ahab did, 1 Kings 21:4 (Hitzig), but away from those who were present, in order that he might pray more freely and collectedly.—O Lord! remember now (2 Kings 20:3). To fall a victim of disease in the midst of his days seemed to the king, in view of proverbs like Proverbs 10:27 : “The fear of the Lord prolongeth days, but the years of the wicked shall be shortened,” to be a proof of having displeased God, that is, to be a punishment. He therefore prays God to remember also the good which he has striven to do, and “takes refuge in the promises which God had given in the Old Testament that good works should be rewarded by length of days” (Starke). For the rest, his words are not to be taken as referring in a general way to moral purity, but, as the expressions “with a perfect heart,” and “good in thy sight” show, as referring especially to his zeal for the pure worship of Jehovah, and his earnestness against every form of idolatry. (On ωָׁ ?μֵ ?ν see notes on 1 Kings 11:4; 1 Kings 11:6.)—And Hezekiah wept sore. Josephus declares that, in addition to the disease, there was now great ἀθυμία, because he was to die childless and leave the kingdom without an heir, and that, in this difficulty, he prayed to God with tears, that He would allow him to live a little longer until he had become a father. The Church fathers and many other ancient expositors adopt this conception of the circumstances, and point, in its support, to the fact that the son and successor of Hezekiah, Manasseh, was only twelve years old when his father died (2 Kings 21:1), that is, he was born three years after this illness. Ewald calls this a “fiction” and appeals to Isaiah 38:19; Isaiah 39:7. It certainly is hardly credible that Hezekiah was childless at the age of thirty-nine; it is not necessary to assume that Manasseh was the oldest son (see note on 1 Kings 1:5); and it is possible that the older sons had died before Hezekiah did. The only reason for his tears is the one which he gives in his hymn of thanksgiving, Isaiah 38:10 sq. 2 Kings 20:4. Afore Isaiah had gone out into the middle city. The middle city is “the central part of the city, i.e., of Mt. Zion where the royal castle was situated.” The keri ηָ ?φֵ ?ψ (“the middle court” [E. V.], not of the temple but of the castle), is presented by all the ancient versions, but it is only an interpretation of ςִ ?ιψ as referring to the castle after the analogy of 2 Kings 10:25 (Keil). ϊִּ ?ιλֹ ?πָ ?δ does not mean the “inner” city, in contrast with the houses which lay outside of the wall of Mt. Zion (Knobel), but only, the middle one.—The words in 2 Kings 20:5 from “behold” to “house of the Lord” are wanting in Isaiah 38:5, but are brought in in Isaiah 38:22. At this point it is quite evident that the account in Isaiah is very much abbreviated. The words on the third day (2 Kings 20:5) need not be taken literally, but they certainly do not mean “within a few weeks” (Hitzig). The phrase, prince of my people, which is added, indicates the ground for assisting him.—On 2 Kings 20:6 see notes on 2 Kings 20:1. The closing words: For mine own sake, &c., are wanting in Isaiah because they already occur in 2 Kings 19:34 (Isaiah 37:35). They have here the same force as there. They are not, therefore, to be understood as containing any special reference to the circumstance that Hezekiah had no son, but that, nevertheless, the house of David should not become extinct, as the old expositors understood.—γְּ ?αֶ ?μֶ ?ϊϊְּ ?ΰֵ ?πִ ?ιν, 2 Kings 20:7, means properly a pressed mass of figs. γְּ ?αֶ ?μֶ ?ϊ without ϊְּ ?ΰֵ ?πִ ?ιν means a cake of figs (1 Samuel 25:18; 1 Samuel 30:12). This was laid upon δַ ?ωְּׁ ?ηִ ?ιο, strictly, the inflammation, hence, the fester, or boil (Job 2:1; Exodus 9:9). It is ordinarily understood to refer to a plague-sore, and it is inferred that Hezekiah was afflicted with “the plague which had carried off the Assyrian army” (Knobel), “the contagion of which had been transmitted to the king” (Winer and others); but this is utterly false. For, in the first place, ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιο never occurs in reference to a plague, and then again, only one sore is here spoken of, whereas the plague produced several on different parts of the body. Moreover a plague or pestilence never occurs in isolated cases, but as an epidemic. There is not the slightest hint that any such disease raged in Jerusalem either before, or during, or after the Assyrian invasion. Still further, figs are not applied as a specific remedy for plague-sores. In pestilence “no medicines are administered except at the commencement of the disease, something to produce perspiration” (Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 233). Figs were the usual remedy for boils. Dioscorides says of them: διαφορεῖ σκληρίας; Pliny: Ulcera aperit; and Jerome remarks on Isaiah 38 : Juxta artem medicorum omnis sanies siccioribus ficis atque contusis in cutis superficiem provocatur (cf. Celsius, Hierobot. II. p. 373). We cannot define more nearly what sort of a boil it was. Ewald thinks it was “a fever-boil;” according to Thenius “a single carbuncle formed under the back of the head,” but this is a pure guess. [The ground for Thenius’ idea, which goes as far as is possible towards defining more nearly the character of the disease, is, that there was a single sore, and that it was about to prove fatal. A carbuncle, particularly in such a place, would answer this description.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 20:8. And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What is the sign, &c? In his deep anxiety the sick man desires an external sign to strengthen his faith in the prophet’s words. Such signs usually attended a prophet’s promises (Isaiah 7:11; Isaiah 7:14; 2 Kings 19:29). This demand of the king is not at all astonishing in view of the words addressed to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:11 : “Ask a sign,” &c. There also the prophet allowed the king to choose what the sign should be. 2 Kings 20:9-11 are condensed in Isaiah into one verse. In 2 Kings 20:9 Drechsler rejects the ordinary translation [that of the E. V.] which makes of the last part an alternative question. He asserts that that translation is “simply impossible.” He translates: “The shadow shall advance ten degrees, or shall it recede ten degrees?” taking δμκ as a command. “The prophet determines, in the first place, that it shall advance, then he interrupts himself, corrects himself, and leaves the king to determine which it shall do.” But it is only in disjunctive questions that ΰִ ?ν means or, and the prophet does not “correct himself” in such a solemn expression. Keil also, in his new commentary, translates: “The shadow has advanced ten degrees—if it should recede ten degrees? “He takes the second clause hypothetically: “Whether it may indeed,” &c., which is not only forced but also unclear. Hezekiah’s answer presupposes a disjunctive question. As in Isaiah 7:11, the prophet asks the king whether he will ask a sign in the depth or in the height, so here he asks Hezekiah whether the sign of the shadow shall be that it shall go forward or backward. It cannot be objected that δֲ is wanting: with δָ ?μַ ?κְ, for this is often the case, and the question is designated only by the tone of the voice (Genesis 27:24; 2 Samuel 18:29. Gesen. Gramm. § 153. 1). [The argument for reading 2 Kings 20:9 as a disjunctive question resolves itself into an inference from Hezekiah’s answer. Regarding simply the grammar of 2 Kings 20:9 there are two obstacles to this rendering; first, the omission of δֲ, which is never omitted in a disjunctive question, and secondly, the perfect tense δָ ?μַ ?κְ. Keil’s translation is therefore better. “The shadow has advanced ten degrees—if it should recede ten degrees? “would that be a satisfactory sign? It is true that the answer of Hezekiah does not seem to fit well to this question. The only other and more satisfactory solution of the difficulty is that which involves an alteration of the text. Knobel and Hitzig read δָ ?μִ ?ικְ. It seems necessary to supply also δֲ as having fallen out before δָ ?μַ ?κְ. The reading would then be: What sign shall there be? The shadow’s advancing? or shall the shadow recede? Keil’s objection (Comm. s. 344 note 2), that the inf. abs. would, in that case, be used for the future, would not apply. The inf. abs. must be understood in its most ordinary use to express directly and simply the verbal idea.—See Gramm. and also Exeg. notes on ΰָ ?λֹ ?μ, 2 Kings 19:29.—W. G. S.].—The words φֵ ?μ and ξַ ?ςֲ ?μεֹ ?ϊ refer to the instrument which we call a sundial, and which the ancients called a shadow-measurer (Plin. 36:15), because the hour of the day was estimated by the length of the shadow. It is evident from this that these instruments were not arranged by them as they are by us (see Martini, Von den Sonnenuhren der Alten, Leipzig, 1777, s. 35). The ξַ ?ςֲ ?μεֹ ?ϊ served to indicate the time. It is generally supposed that they were the degrees or lines (Vulg. line�) of the scale on the indicator of the sun-dial. But ξַ ?ςֲ ?μָ ?δ means a going up, an ascent, or that which ascends, hence a step (1 Kings 10:19; 2 Kings 9:13), never a grade, a degree, or a line (see Knobel on Isaiah 38:8). The Sept. always render it by ἀναβαθμοί. The shadow-measurer must, therefore, have had steps like a pair of stairs. As it is called in 2 Kings 20:10 : “the steps of Ahaz;” it has often been supposed that it consisted of the stairs to the royal palace. Stairs, however, as distinguished from steps, were called ςεֹ ?μָ ?δ (Ezekiel 40:26), and why should the stairs of the royal palace, which had long been in their place, be called the stairs of Ahaz? It is evident that the shadow-measurer was an instrument by itself and not a part of the royal palace. It was “an arrangement contrived especially to measure the length of the shadow as a means of learning the hour” (Thenius). It is not possible now to say how it was contrived. Among the numerous guesses which have been made as to the mode of its construction (Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 498 sq.) the simplest and most natural seems to us to be that it was a column with circular steps surrounding it. “This column cast the shadow of its top at noon upon its uppermost, and morning and evening upon the lowest step, and thus designated the hour of the day” (Knobel). The prophet’s question gives rise to the supposition that there were twenty of these steps, so that the shadow could go forward or backward ten degrees. “If the sign was given an hour before sunset then the shadow, returning ten degrees of a half-hour each, came back to the point at which it stood at noon” (Delitsch). It is impossible to draw any inference from this as to the division of hours among the Jews, for it is probable that they did not have any such division before the captivity (Winer, I. c. II. s. 560). The fact that the sun-dial was named after Ahaz is doubtless due to its having been first set up by him in the court of the palace. According to Herodotus (2:109) it was a Babylonian invention, and as the Babylonians were then in continual intercourse with the Assyrians, Ahaz may have become acquainted with it through the latter, just as he borrowed from them the plan of the new altar (2 Kings 16:10). [“To them (the Assyrians) also is to be attributed the institution of the week of seven days, dedicated to the seven planetary bodies worshipped by them as divine beings, and the order assigned by them to the days has not been changed from time immemorial. Having invented the gnomon, they were the first to divide the day into twenty-four hours, the hours into sixty minutes, and the minutes into sixty seconds” (Lenormant I. 449). They had a sexagesimal system of notation (Chevallier, ibid.).] 2 Kings 20:10. And Hezekiah answered: It is a light thing. Clericus thinks that Hezekiah answered the prophet’s question non satis prudenter, for that it would be as difficult for the shadow to advance as to recede. But Starke observes correctly: “As the shadow, in the ordinary course of things, always advances and never recedes, the king chooses that which appears to be the more difficult in order that the proof may be the clearer.” Full of his ardent wish that the shadow of death (Matthew 4:16) may not extend any further, but may become shorter, he naturally chooses the latter movement for the shadow on the dial. And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord, &c., 2 Kings 20:11. Thenius arbitrarily asserts that “these words do not belong to history, but express the mode of conception prevalent at the time the history was written” [in other words, that Isaiah did not, as an actual matter of history, at this point in his conversation with the king, “cry to the Lord,” but that the historian’s idea of what a prophet would do under such circumstances was, that he would at this point cry to God, and that he accordingly inserted here a mention of Isaiah’s having done so]. The prophets were accustomed, before giving a sign to confirm their utterances, to call upon God, because they knew, and every one else was to be taught, that the sign did not come from them but from God (1 Kings 17:20; 1 Kings 18:36; 2 Kings 4:33; 2 Kings 6:17; cf. John 11:41). As in 2 Kings 20:9 so also here in 2 Kings 20:11, a movement forwards and backwards is ascribed, not to the sun but to the shadow. In this sign, all turned upon the shadow, not upon the sun. Thenius thinks that δַ ?ωֶּׁ ?ξֶ ?ωׁ must be supplied as a subject to ιָ ?ψְ ?γָ ?δ, because it is a feminine form, while φֵ ?μ is masculine, but, in view of the variableness of the Hebrew genders, we cannot draw an inference from this feminine form which shall contradict the clear sense of the words (see Drechsler on Isaiah 38:8). The account in Isaiah has instead of this verse: “Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun-dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down;” but here also φֵ ?μ must be understood as the subject of the first ιָ ?ψְ ?γָ ?δ, and, in the case of the second ιָ ?ψְ ?γָ ?δ, we must understand that the reference is not to any movement of the sun, but to a movement of the shadow caused by the sun. Drechsler correctly observes on the words: “And the sun turned backward:” “that is to say, of course, that the sunshine moved backwards on the indicator [better, the steps] on which it fell.” (Cf. also Delitsch on Isaiah 38:8.) The account in Kings is more detailed and more accurate than that in Isaiah, for the latter omits 2 Kings 20:10-11, and mentions briefly, in 2 Kings 20:21, 22, after the thanksgiving of Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:9-20), that which is here given in 2 Kings 20:7-8, as if the figs had not been applied until after the ξִ ?λְ ?ϊָּ ?α of Hezekiah. [The story of the incident is complete without 2 Kings 20:7-11. Hezekiah’s recovery is mentioned in 2 Kings 20:7, and it is a surprise to read in 2 Kings 20:8 a request from him to be assured by a sign that he shall be healed. This lack of unity in the story seems to point to the fact that two independent traditions in regard to Hezekiah’s illness are here combined. Unfortunately the account in Isaiah is also somewhat disjointed. Isaiah 38:21-22 brings in the account of the king’s recovery as a sort of supplement, or after thought. He there asks for a sign that he shall go to the temple on the third day, not, that he shall recover.—See further the bracketed addition to Histor. § 4.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 20:12. At that time Berodach-baladan, &c. This took place “certainly not very soon after what is narrated above, for, at that time, news travelled slowly, and journeys took time” (Thenius), but it certainly was not as late as 703 [See Supplem. Note after the Exeg. section on chaps. 18 and 19, and the similar Note after the present Exeg. section], as Knobel thinks, that is ten years after, for the ostensible object of the embassy was to congratulate the king on his recovery. αְּ ?ψֹ ?ΰγַ ?κְ stands for ξְ ?ψֹ ?ΰγַ ?κְ Isaiah 39:1. It is not an error, but simply an interchange of the labials, as in αָּ ?ψִ ?ιΰ and ξָ ?ψִ ?ιΰ. Merodach is really the name of the Babylonian Mars (Jeremiah 50:2). [See Exeg. notes on Jeremiah 16:3; Jeremiah 17:16. —Merodach belonged to the third rank of gods in the Babylonian Pantheon. This rank consisted of five gods representing the five planets. Merodach was equivalent to Jupiter, and was identified with the planet which we call by that name. He was one of the chief gods at Babylon and had two shrines (one mystic) in the great pyramid there. Nebuchadnezzar speaks of having adorned this pyramid and these shrines. Merodach was a secondary form or emanation of Bel (Baal). “He was called ‘the ancient one of the gods, the supreme judge, the master of the horoscope;’ he was represented as a man erect and walking, and with a naked sword in his hand.” (Lenormant, I. 454 sq.)] It was the custom of the Babylonians and Assyrians to give their kings the names of divinities. Baladan is, according to the Aramaic, equivalent to αַּ ?ςַ ?μΰָ ?γεֹ ?ο. On the question whether this king was the Μαρδοκέμπαδος in the Canon Ptol., who reigned twelve years, or the Merodach-baladan in the Chron. Armen. of Eusebius (Berosus), who only reigned six months, see Niebuhr, Gesch. Assyr. s. 40 and 75 sq., and Delitsch on Isaiah 38:1. [See Supplem. Note at the end of this section.]—According to 2 Chronicles 32:31, the object of the embassy was, not only to congratulate Hezekiah on his recovery, but also to get information about the miracle, that is about the “sign” of the prophet. Evidently this was only the ostensible object; consequently Josephus does not mention it at all (Ant. x. 2, 2), but only gives the true one: σύμμαχόντεαὐτὸνεἶναιπαρεκάλεικαὶ φίλον. The kings of Babylon, who at that time were under the Assyrian supremacy, sought to free themselves from it. The present time, when Sennacherib had suffered a severe calamity, seemed to them to be the best opportunity. “The object of the embassy was to form an alliance with a king who had successfully resisted the Assyrian power” (Von Gerlach). Hence it follows that Hezekiah’s illness fell in the time after and not before the Assyrian invasion. His recovery gave the king of Babylon the pretext he desired for sending an embassy. He did not care much to offer an empty congratulation. His object was, to “find out the strength of the kingdom of Judah” (Ewald). The ambassadors succeeded in inducing Hezekiah himself to give them full information in regard to this. 2 Kings 20:13. And Hezekiah rejoiced on account of them, certainly not merely on account of their civility in coming to see him, and congratulate him, but also on account of the real object of their visit, which he easily perceived, even if they did not expressly make it known to him. An alliance with the Babylonians, whose power was then on the increase, seemed to him to be very advantageous to his kingdom, and to assure him against further danger from the Assyrians. He therefore showed them his treasury, his armory, &c, in order to show them that his means were not so entirely exhausted as might be expected after the Assyrian invasion. Drechsler justly remarks upon the enumeration of the different objects which follows, that “it lay in the interest of the narrator to enumerate as many as possible of these objects, in order to show that Hezekiah exerted himself to bring out and show everything which could set off his military strength and resources.” First the treasury is mentioned, in which silver and gold were stored. πְ ?λֹ ?ϊ is not to be connected with πְ ?λֹ ?ΰϊ (Genesis 37:25; Genesis 43:11) i.e., spice, especially the gum of the tragacanth which grows in Syria (why should the “spice-house” be mentioned first of all, before the silver and gold?). The word comes rather from the unused root λּ ?εּ ?ϊ, equivalent to λּ ?εּ ?ν: conceal, cover, preserve (see Fόrst, s. v.), so that it means “treasure-house,” or “store-house.” The assumption that it was first used for storing spices, but then for storing gold and silver (Gesenius), is at least unnecessary. [The etymology suggested by Fόrst and adopted by Bδhr is very uncertain and improbable. It does not appear that λּ ?εּ ?ν has the sense attributed to it. Gesenius’ explanation is the best, and is the one almost universally adopted. πְ ?λֹ ?ΰϊ = πְ ?λֹ ?ϊ spice. The spice-house is the one used for storing spices—which were always reckoned as precious articles. The name then passed over to a store-house, or treasury, for precious articles of all sorts.—W. G. S.]. αְּ ?ωָׂ ?ξִ ?ιν, perfume, the general expression for all objects which have a pleasant smell, which were used either for incense or for ointment, and which were highly esteemed. “At courts it was considered highly important to have a good stock of these” (Winer II. s. 495 sq.). The rabbis, whom Movers and Keil follow, say that ωֶׁ ?ξֶ ?οδַ ?θּ ?εֹ ?α is not fine olive-oil, but balsam-oil manufactured from the products of the royal gardens. The armory which here stands in contrast with the treasury is without doubt the house of the forest of Lebanon (see notes on 1 Kings 7:2). In all his dominion, i.e., “throughout the extent of his authority; not only in the royal castle, but throughout his kingdom” (Drechsler). It has been asked whence all these treasures came, since Hezekiah had to give up all his gold and silver to Sennacherib, and even to take off the gold coverings to the doorposts of the temple, which he had himself given in order to satisfy Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14-16). The answer is not difficult. Sennacherib had only demanded gold and silver, not perfume, nor oil, nor even arms, and with these last Hezekiah had abundantly supplied himself at the approach of the Assyrians (2 Chronicles 32:5). The armory was therefore full, and the spices all remained. As for the silver and gold, it is evident from 2 Kings 20:17 (“and that which thy fathers have laid up in store”) that Hezekiah had not given up all, but still retained some of the ancient articles which had been handed down. He preferred to take the temple adornments which he himself had given, rather than to give up these articles which perhaps were hidden away in subterranean places of security. “The Chronicler also relates (II. Chron 32:23), in a credible manner, that, after the retreat of the Assyrians, many kings sent presents to Hezekiah” (Thenius). Finally, a great deal of booty may have been obtained from the camp of the Assyrians after their sudden flight, as Vitringa, Ewald, and Drechsler suggest [See Supplem. Note after Exeg. on chaps, 18 and 19. The tribute given by Hezekiah is there mentioned in detail, from the inscriptions.] 2 Kings 20:14. Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah. Isaiah perceived the real object of the Babylonian embassy. He saw that the object was not merely to congratulate the king on his recovery and to satisfy their curiosity, but that they also desired to draw Hezekiah into an alliance, and he saw that the king was disposed to enter into one. He therefore felt himself impelled to go to the king and to call him to account. This he does by a question which, however, involves a strong affirmation: I know what has been done, but why hast thou done it? He desired a confession from the mouth of the king himself. As he had zealously protested before against any alliance with Egypt and Assyria, so he now warned the king against Babylon, and showed him what was to be apprehended from that quarter. Hezekiah’s unembarrassed reply (2 Kings 20:15) shows that he supposed that he was doing right. “Hear,” the prophet rejoins, “Jehovah’s word” (2 Kings 20:16); thou hopest for help and deliverance from Babylon, but this very Babylon shall bring to thy kingdom and people ruin and destruction. These, to whom thou hast shown all that thou hast, will take away all this and more besides; they will take away even thy children and make them servants at their court. 2 Kings 20:18. That shall issue out of thee, that thou shalt beget—not his own sons, strictly speaking, but his descendants, a sense in which αֵּ ?ο is so often used. Although ρָ ?ψִ ?ιρִ ?ιν really means cunuchs, and although “the proper sting of the assertion in this verse is not to be unnecessarily blunted” (Drechsler), nevertheless we must not insist upon the literal force of the word, as Gesenius does, but understand by it footmen, or court attendants (1 Samuel 8:15), as we see from the example of Daniel (Daniel 1:8), who was not a eunuch. There was humiliation enough in this prospect. 2 Kings 20:19. Then said Hezekiah unto Isaiah.— He subjects himself in humility, and in submission to the will of God, and to the prophet’s words, as Eli did, 1 Samuel 3:18, cf. the same expression 1 Kings 2:38; 1 Kings 2:42. θεֹ ?α cannot here mean kind (Umbreit), for the words in 2 Kings 20:17-18 were not “kind;” nevertheless they were good in the fullest sense of the word, inasmuch as they were the words of God.—“They were such that there was no fault to be found with them” (Lange). Clericus remarks on the word; Bonum vocatur id, in quo acquiescere par est, quipped ab eo profectum, qui nihil facit, quod non tantum justissimum, sed quod summa bonitate non sit temperatum, etiam cum p�nas sumit. The second εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ shows that after the first part of the answer there was a pause, and that the following words were not addressed directly to Isaiah, although they were spoken before he went away; not, as Knobel thinks, after he was gone. δֲ ?μֹ ?ΰ is strictly nonne? “The interrogative force is often lost, and it does not differ from δֵ ?ο or δִ ?πֵּ ?δ. See 1 Samuel 20:37; 2 Samuel 15:35; Job 22:12” (Gesenius). ΰִ ?ν is a particle of wishing (Psalms 81:8; Psalms 139:18). Calmet renders the sense thus: Justa sunt omnia, qu�cunque Deus sancivit, sed utinam coλrceat ultionis suζ cursum, quamdiu vivo. This seems simpler and more natural than Keil’s translation: “Is it not so, i.e., is it not pure goodness if peace and security are to last through my days (as long as I live)?” Instead of δֲ ?μֹ ?ΰΰִ ?ν we find in Isaiah 39:8, λִּ ?ι, which is by no means to be preferred, for the translation: “For there will be peace” does not join on well to what precedes. According to Knobel λִּ ?ι simply introduces the direct discourse. It is an error to translate, as is often done: “Very well! so long as there may only be peace and security in my time,” and to take the words as an expression of “naive” (Gesenius), or “easy” (Knobel), or “genuine oriental” (Hitzig) egotism, as if, as some of the rabbis indeed understand it (see Jerome on Isaiah 39.), he did not trouble himself about his people. On the contrary, it is out of love for them that he does not wish to survive or see their destruction. His words are an expression of pain (Josephus: λυπηθείς), and not of easy selfishness. Drechsler and Keil understand ΰֶ ?ξֶ ?ϊ to refer to the “faithfulness of God, who keeps the covenant of grace which He has made with the humble,” and Hitzig understands it of the faithfulness of men, “who keep the peace and observe treaties.” But, as there is no reference here to peace with God (see 2 Kings 20:17-18), so it cannot refer to His faithfulness, much less to that of the Babylonians, who, as yet, had made no treaty. ΰֶ ?ξֶ ?ϊ is rather a synonym of ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν, and signifies permanence, security. It cannot be understood otherwise in Jeremiah 33:6, where it stands in the same connection (cf. Jeremiah 14:13). Vitringa: status rerum stabilis. 2 Kings 20:20. And the rest of the acts, &c. In the notice of the close of Hezekiah’s reign, 2 Kings 20:20-21, we find inserted in the ordinary formula especial mention of his βְּ ?αεּ ?ψָ ?δ (see Exeg. on 1 Kings 15:23), and also of the aqueduct which he built, and which was of permanent utility to the city. The panegyric of Hezekiah in Sir 48:17, makes especial mention of the same. The reference is, of course, to the aqueduct which Hezekiah caused to be built at the approach of the Assyrians, and not to the one which is mentioned 2 Kings 18:17 and Isaiah 7:3. According to 2 Chronicles 32:3 sq. all the fountains outside of the city walls, also Gihon and its pools, were covered over, in order, in case of siege, to deprive the besiegers of the use of the water. Then the water was all collected and led under-ground into the city, where it flowed into the pool called after Hezekiah, now more generally known as the Birket el Hamman. (See Thenius, in the appendix to his Commentar, s. 18. Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 568. Keil on 2 Kings 18:17.)—According to 2 Chronicles 32:33, Hezekiah was buried “on the hill-slope [E. V. is incorrect] of the graves of the sons [descendants] of David,” i.e., he was not buried in the royal sepulchres. The additional remark: “And all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honor at his death,” shows that he was not buried elsewhere than in the royal sepulchres through lack of respect, but probably through lack of room, or because he himself had chosen this place. _________ [Supplementary Note incorporating those results of Assyrian and Babylonian investigations which bear on the elucidation of chap. 20. As we saw in the Note at the end of the Exeg. section on chaps. 18 and 19, Rawlinson thinks that Sennacherib made two expeditions into Judah (or, at least, sent a second), in the year 700 or 698. Lenormant supposes that all the events mentioned occurred in one campaign, in 701–699. Hezekiah’s sickness was of such a character (2 Kings 20:7) as to suggest a plague, the result of the Assyrian occupation. It occurred in 699 or 698. He, however, recovered. There can be no question that Hezekiah was in imminent danger of this kind at one time in his life, soon after the Assyrian invasion. As we shall see, below, the statement that his life was prolonged for fifteen years thereafter presents great difficulty. Rawlinson, although he puts Sennacherib’s invasion in 700–698, puts Hezekiah’s illness, and the visit of the Babylonians, in 713, on account of the biblical data. We must, however, accept the results of the investigations, and put the visit of the Babylonian ambassadors in 698–7. The sickness of the king was not an event of such a character as to be recorded in the history, if it were not for Isaiah’s connection with it. On this account it was included at a later time, and, if it contains chronological statements which conflict with those which we find elsewhere, it is rather they than the others which must be disregarded. It is noticeable that the sickness is said to have occurred just in the middle of the king’s reign, and, if the date were not well-known, and an arbitrary date had to be fixed upon by tradition, this is the one of all others which would be most likely to be chosen. Let us therefore disregard this statement rather than others, and put the king’s illness in 698–7. The world is always ready to worship success, without stopping to analyze it, and see on what it rests. Little Judah alone of the nations of Western Asia had escaped the Assyrians. It had not done so by virtue of its own strength, but by virtue of what must have appeared to the neighboring nations to be an accident. Nevertheless we find that an embassy came immediately afterwards, from Babylon, to form an alliance. There was a king on the throne of Chaldea in 709 who is called Merodach Baladan, (Marduk-baliddin) in the inscription called the “Acts of Sargon.” Lenormant identifies him with the Kinzirus of Ptolemy’s canon; but that king reigned earlier, and the identification with Mardocempalus (721–709), which Rawlinson adopts, seems better. In 709 Sargon totally defeated this king at Dur-Yakin, a town on the Euphrates below Babylon. Babylon became subject to Assyria. (It had been free since 760. Supp. Note. on chap. 15). The defeated king either escaped in disguise or was taken prisoner; the inscription says one thing in one place and another in another. When we next meet with the same name, it is, therefore, doubtful whether it is the same person or his son. Merodach Baladan at any rate proved himself a patriotic Babylonian, and a determined foe of the Assyrians. Immediately after Sargon’s assassination, in 704, Babylon revolted under Agises, but Merodach Baladan killed him, and himself took command (Lenormant). Sennacherib mentions, in his inscription, that his first campaign was against Merodach Baladan, and the armies of Elam, which were allied with him. He defeated and plundered them, spoiled Chaldea, and put a vassal king over it (703). While Sennacherib was engaged in Syria, Philistia, and Judah (see Supp. Notes on chaps. 16, 17, 18 and 19) Merodach Baladan escaped from prison, raised another revolt, and expelled the vassal king. Sennacherib, after his disaster in Judah, turned once more against Chaldea. It was now that Merodach Baladan sent to Hezekiah to try to form an alliance. Hezekiah was flattered by this and made a show of his treasures. He probably did not want the Babylonians to think that, after all, he was not an ally worth having. The result proved the justice of the prophet’s warning. Merodach Baladan was again defeated. He died in exile soon after, and Chaldea was once more subjugated. Sennacherib set his son Asshur-nadin on the throne. Some years of peace followed, during which Sennacherib was rebuilding Nineveh, which he did with great magnificence. But in 693, on the death of Asshur-nadin, Babylon once more revolted. For the next ten years Sennacherib was occupied in suppressing a series of fierce but unsuccessful revolts in Babylon, and in prosecuting wars in Elam and Susiana to punish the allies of the rebels. In 682 he made his son Esarhaddon viceroy of Babylon, having chastised the city with such severity as to leave it half-ruined. He was assassinated in 680 (Lenormant). To return to Hezekiah. If he lived fifteen years after his illness, he died in 685, and reigned forty-two (not twenty-nine) years. Lenormant adopts this opinion, and adjusts other data to it thus: Manasseh was born in 797. He was recognized as king from his birth. The twenty-nine years of Hezekiah are reckoned to this time, and the fifty-five of Manasseh from it. Hezekiah died in 685, when Manasseh was twelve years old. Aside from the violence of this theory, it encounters numerous specific objections, and cannot be adopted. It is more reasonable to hold fast the twenty-nine years for Hezekiah’s reign, and sacrifice the fifteen years stated as his new lease of life. See the first paragraph above. Hezekiah died in 698–7, and Manasseh was twelve years old at that time.—See Note 30 on the Chronolog. Table at the end of the volume.—W. G. S.] AND ETHICAL1. The story of the illness of Hezekiah “withdraws our attention from the external history of the kingdom, which is narrated in the foregoing chapters, and reveals to us the soul of the king. It leads us out of the city into the royal palace” (Umbreit). The announcement of his approaching death shocked him deeply; he turned away from those who surrounded him, and “wept sore,” as if death were the end of all. What has become of his firm faith? Where is the fearless confidence with which a pious man faces death? Does this not seem like unmanly weakness, and like anything but submission to the will of God? But there are two things to be considered in explanation. Hezekiah had passed his whole life up to this point in anxiety and trouble; he had only just escaped a danger which threatened his kingdom and his life; he was now, for the first time, in a position to look forward with courage and hope to a period of peace, rest, and prosperity, and to the opportunity of doing more for his country than he had hitherto been able to do. At this time, now, in the very prime of life, he was suddenly called to die and to give up all. He had succeeded to the throne in a time of deep decay, and had sought in every way to restore prosperity and strength, and now, when he was in a position to labor for this end with some success, he must leave all. Nothing could be more natural than that he, a man of warm and earnest feelings, from whom no stoical apathy was to be expected, should be terrified and shocked when he heard the prophet’s words: Thou shalt die! He does not murmur or complain, still less does he, like Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:4-9), burst out in anger against the messenger of death. Neither does he simply resign himself; he bows humbly and pours out his grief in prayer to Him in whom he believed. Therefore his prayer finds an answer, which it never would have done if it had been made in womanish weakness or in that love of life which is displeasing to God. The fulfilment of his prayer is a proof that it was offered in a right spirit. The prayer came from a faithful, noble, and pious heart, as we see from his hymn of thanksgiving, Isaiah 38:9-20. He had in mind the words, Psalms 145:18-19. In the second place it is to be remembered that Hezekiah belonged to the pious men of the Old Testament, who had not that hope and confidence which belongs to those who know Him who has conquered death; that he had never heard the words: “Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:57). The promises in the Old Testament economy all refer to this life and to the bliss of communion with the living God. Death had not yet lost its sting. Hence the terror with which even the pious men of the Old Testament looked forward to it, while the pious men of the New Covenant look up in full confidence to Him who has robbed death of its power, and in Whom all promises are yea and amen. 2. Hezekiah’s prayer has been interpreted as “self praise,” on account of the appeal which it contains to his righteous life (Thenius), and the ridiculous assertion has been made that “the Church, at least the Protestant Church, must, according to its standards, class him among the self-righteous” (Menzel). It is entirely left out of view, in this judgment, that Hezekiah stood in the economy of the Old Testament, that is, in the economy of legal righteousness; that the entire revelation of the Old Testament is concentrated in the Law of Moses, as that of the New Testament is concentrated in the Gospel; and that to walk according to this Law is not to be virtuous, morally pure, and free from sin, but to serve. Jehovah as the only God, to fear Him, to trust Him, and to love Him with all the heart (Deuteronomy 6:1-5). Hezekiah did not know any more about the modern doctrine that a man should practise virtue simply for the sake of virtue, than he did about the evangelical doctrine that faith alone, without works, ensures salvation. He considered that death, which was announced to him, was a penalty inflicted by God, and he did not know how he had incurred it, since he had always endeavored to serve God to the best of his knowledge and conscience, and never had departed from Him. He comes before the judge of life and death and begs Him not to remember his sins alone, but also to remember that he has feared and worshipped Him. He could say all this without Pharisaical “self-praise” (Luke 18:9-12), just as well as St. Paul could say, without self-righteousness: “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7). The whole thanksgiving hymn, Isaiah 38, breathes humility before the Almighty and Holy One; there is not a hint of self-praise or of holiness by works in it. “Thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption; for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back” (Isaiah 38:17). His greatest cause for grief was that he must go thither where he could no longer praise the Lord. Would that all who consider themselves virtuous and holy would show themselves as humble and penitent in the face of death as Hezekiah did. [It cannot be denied that there is a great deal of special pleading in this criticism of Hezekiah’s words. We have to be on our guard against setting out with a determination to see nothing but good in certain of these characters, and nothing but evil in certain others, and against warping facts to suit this foregone judgment, most of all, if “good” or “evil” are to be measured by modern standards. When Hezekiah says that he has walked before God with a perfect heart, and in fidelity, he refers to the requirements of the Mosaic Law, but when he says: “I have done good in thy sight,” he means moral good—righteousness. He claims, in perfect honesty and simplicity, that lie has done what is right. The answer to those who accuse him of self-praise is not to be found in twisting the words. Two things may be urged in answer, both of which are true as general principles, and are not suggested by the desire of establishing the saintliness of Hezekiah’s character. The first is that, if he had really done what was right as far as he knew, and if his theology taught him that this calamity was a punishment which indicated that he had been doing wrong, then he had a full right to appeal to his conduct against this theological inference (cf. the argument of Eliphaz, Job 4:5, particularly 2 Kings 4:7, and Job’s answer, in which he justifies himself. See 2 Kings 13:15; 2 Kings 13:23). Secondly: the naive expression of Hezekiah, who thinks that he has done right and says so, is not to be judged by the modern mock-humility which often thinks that it has done right, and says that it has not; which assents to the doctrine that all have sinned, as a general theological proposition, while the individual who repeats it does not see, in his heart, that he has sinned after all. The Jewish theology taught that temporal calamities were judgments of God inflicted in punishment for sin. Hence it was inferred that a man who suffered misfortune must have sinned (Isaiah 53:4). Hezekiah had attempted to do right to the best of his ability. His conscience told him that he had been faithful to this effort, and in all truth and simplicity he expressed this conviction. It is evident that it is impertinent to judge any such naοve and truthful expression by our conventional modern standards of how much a man may be allowed to express of the sincere convictions of his heart, when they bear upon his own merits or abilities.—W. G. S.] 3. The prophet Isaiah here “meets us once more in all the glory of the prophetical dignity” (Umbreit). His conduct is based upon the premise of his prophetical character, without which it would be obscure and enigmatical. What he does and says, he does and says not in his own power, but as one who “stands before Jehovah” (1 Kings 17:1), and who is set “over nations and kingdoms to root out and to pull down and to destroy, to throw down, to build and to plant” (Jeremiah 1:10). Mighty in word and deed, without fear of men or anxiety to please them, he threatens, and warns, and exhorts, and helps. He undertakes without hesitation the duty, heavy for him no doubt, of going into the palace to announce to his sovereign the terrible command: “Set thine house in order.” Then he retires, leaving the king to the effects of this command, but soon returns and declares to the crushed monarch, who is absorbed in anxious prayer, the fulfilment of that prayer, the promise of complete and speedy recovery, nay even of a reign prolonged for as many years more as it had already lasted, and the protection of God throughout this time. What would become of the prophet if he did all this in obedience to his mere human judgment? According to the ordinary custom of the prophets (see 1 Kings 17. Hist. § 6; Pt. II. pp. 17, 47, 58) he combines with the promise of recovery the use of an external means of healing. The cluster of figs here had just the same function as the means used by our Lord (John 9:6; John 9:14). It was not the cluster of figs which helped the man at the point of death, but the Almighty Lord of life and death. The ordinary means of healing was here a sign und pledge of the promised cure. As the Berleburger Bibel says: “Since this means could not have the power of curing in itself, it was used as a sign of the divine superhuman power.” Isaiah did not employ the ordinary, natural means until he was sure of the divine help. It was just because this means of cure was the ordinary natural one, that Hezekiah wanted a “sign” that Jehovah would heal him (2 Kings 20:8), and did not have complete confidence in this remedy. It is, therefore, utterly erroneous to ascribe Hezekiah’s cure to the cluster of figs, to talk about Isaiah’s knowledge of medicine, and to draw the inference that the prophets were accustomed to act as “physicians” (Knobel, Der Prophet. der Hebr. I. s. 55. Winer, R.-W.-B II. s. 280). If the prophet had, as a physician, been sure of the efficacy of this remedy, he would have behaved in the most reprehensible manner in not applying it at once, and in beginning by announcing certain death. 4. The sign, which was granted to Hezekiah at his request, has intimate analogy with the prophetic declaration which it was intended to confirm. There could hardly be a more significant sign than one presented on the shadow-measurer, that is, the time-measurer, which was “arranged in the court of the palace before the king’s windows” (Thenius). Every human life is like a days—it has its morning, its noon, and its evening, (Ecclesiastes 11:6; Ecclesiastes 12:1-2; Job 11:17; Matthew 20:3, sq.). The advance of the shadow shows the approach of evening (Jeremiah 6:4; Job 7:1-2), which will be followed by darkness and night. Hezekiah’s life-day was on the decline; the night of death was approaching; then it was promised him this day should stand once more at its noon, that the shadow of death should recede, and that the evening should once more become mid-day. The sign is not therefore “a mere pledge of the fulfilment of the promise in 2 Kings 20:5-6,” in which “there is no analogy to be traced with the fact of the prolongation of his life” (Thenius). On the contrary, its significance is so apparent that it is difficult not to see it at once. This is not a mere trick of art or power, in place of which any other one might just as well have been chosen, any more than any of the other prophetic signs.—As for the physical features of the sign, many, starting from the supposition that a “violation of the order of the solar system” (Menzel), a miracle which involved the revolution of the earth on its axis in a direction contrary to its regular one, is here recorded, have been shocked and repelled, and have either sought to explain it naturally, or have characterized it as a myth. The old naturalistic explanations by a second-sun, a vapor cloud, or an earthquake (see Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 499), may all be passed over as antiquated. We need only take notice here of the two most recent attempts. According to Gumpach (Alttestam. Studien, I. s. 195 sq.), Isaiah turned about the foot of the index, which before was towards the East, so that the shadow, instead of running down, as before, would descend [ascend?]. In that case, however, the sign would be nothing but “a very simple trick” (Oehler), and the greatest prophet of the Old Testament would be nothing but a common juggler. This trivial hypothesis falls to the ground with the erroneous, at least unproven assumption, that the shadow-measurer had a gnomon with a foot-piece. According to Thenius, we have to understand that there was “a partial eclipse of the sun, unnoticed by most men.” Such an one occurred, according to Prof. Seyffarth’s communication to Thenius, oh the 26th of Sept., 713, b.c., “which date is in perfect consistency with all the other chronological statements of the Book of Kings.” He adds that during such an eclipse “a slight advance and recession of the shadow takes place.” “Isaiah made use of his astronomical knowledge to give the king, in his despair, a sign which should re-arouse his courage.” This explanation, which no one else has yet adopted,—[Stanley (II. 537) says it is the only thing which could “illustrate” the cause of the phenomenon. He adds that he is informed that the variation would be almost imperceptible except to a scientific observer.]—rests upon the very doubtful assumption [?] that there was a partial eclipse of the sun in the year 713, and upon the still more doubtful assumption that Isaiah had great astronomical knowledge, and knew how to make shrewd use of it upon occasion. It is, therefore, a most unfortunate attempt. Let us have done with attempts to explain facts and events, which the historian distinctly declares to be miracles, by naturalistic hypotheses. Modern criticism does not indeed any longer deny that a miracle is here recorded, but disposes of it as a myth, and asserts either that a natural event was at a later time exaggerated and embellished with miraculous details, or that this story grew up through tradition out of the simple promise of the prophet, that, as the sun, after going down, returns and repeats its course, so Hezekiah’s life should, though it had reached its limit, take a new start, and go on for a time longer (Knobel, Hitzig). Ewald’s notion amounts to the same thing. He says: “It must not be overlooked that this story was not written down, in its present form, until twenty years or more after the event, and after the death of Hezekiah and of Isaiah. Isaiah’s good influence in this incident, even on the domestic life of the good prince, stands firm as an historical fact, and his words of trust and consolation no doubt miraculously (!) encouraged the king.” In this way, it is true, we glide most easily over all difficulties. But it is a purely self-willed assumption, which has no foundation save dislike for everything miraculous, that this story was not recorded in its present form until twenty years after the event, and that it is a product of tradition. The two records of it are, in the main points, identical. Both are taken, as was shown above, from an older authority, with which we are not acquainted, and of which we cannot assert that it was first written years after the death of Hezekiah and Isaiah, at a time when tradition had already converted the history of this incident into a myth. The Chronicler also, although his record is very brief, speaks of a ξεֹ ?τֵ ?ϊ (2 Chronicles 32:24). Critical science first exaggerates the miracle, and makes of it an event which would produce a cataclysm on earth, in order to have so much more ground for declaring it a myth. But there is no hint of any such event in the text. The miracle “was not visible everywhere, but only in Jerusalem,” and “since it is a case of a sign which was to serve as a pledge, and did not need to be supernatural, it was accomplished by a phenomenon of refraction in the rays of light” (Keil), “for it is sufficient that the shadow, which in the afternoon was below, by a sudden refraction should be bent upwards” (Delitsch). There are “certain weak analogies in the natural course of nature, as, for instance, the phenomenon cited by many expositors, which occurred in the year 1703, at Metz, in Lothringia, and which was observed by the prior of the Monastery there, P. Romuald, and many others, that the shadow on a sun-dial receded an hour and a half” (Keil). [Bosanquet, in an Essay published in the Jour. of the Royal Asiatic Soc., Vol. XV., offers a solution of this phenomenon from the features of an eclipse. This eclipse took place in the year 689, on the 11th of January. He founds upon this an argument that that must have been the year of Hezekiah’s sickness, but this argument has not been considered conclusive as against other data. We mention it here only as a proffered explanation of the manner in which such a phenomenon might have been perceived, without involving a reversed motion of the earth. For a few days before and after the winter solstice, the sun’s altitude at noon at Jerusalem is about 34°. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND SECTION The Monarchy Under Manasseh, Amon, And Josiah (2 Kings 21:1 to 2 Kings 23:30)A.—The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon2 Kings 21:1-26. (2 Chronicles 33)1Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Hephzi-bah. 2And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, after the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out before the children of Israel. 3For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made a grove [an Astarte-image], as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them. 4And he built altars in the house of the Lord, of which the Lord said, In Jerusalem will I put my name. 5And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts 6of the house of the Lord. And [omit And] he [He also] made his son pass through the fire, and observed times [practised sooth-saying], and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards [patronized necromancers and wizards]2 Kings 2 : he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger. 7And he set a graven image [copy] of the grove [Astarte-image] that he had made in the house, of which the Lord said to David, and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name forever: 8Neither will I make the feet of Israel move [wander] any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; [,] only [omit only] if they will [only] observe [take care] to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them. 9But they hearkened not: and Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel. 10And the Lord spake by his servants the prophets, saying, Because Manasseh 11king of Judah hath done these abominations, and hath done wickedly above all that the Amorites did, which were before him, and hath made Judah also to sin with his idols: 12Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth or it, both his ears shall tingle. 13And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab: and I will wipe [out] Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down [—he wipeth it and turneth it upside down]. 14And I will forsake [throw away] the remnant of mine inheritance, and deliver them into the hand of their enemies; and they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies; 15Because they have done that which was evil in my sight, and have provoked me to anger, since the day their fathers came forth out of Egypt, even unto this day. 16Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; besides his sin wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. 17Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 18And Manasseh slept with his fathers, and was buried in the garden of his own house, in the garden of Uzza: and Amon his son reigned in his stead. 19Amon was twenty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah. 20And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, as his father Manasseh did. 21And he walked in all the way that his father walked in, and served the idols that his father served, and worshipped them: 22And he forsook the Lord God of his fathers, and walked not in the way of the Lord. 23And the servants of Amon conspired against him, and slew the king in his own house. 24And the people of the land slew all them that had conspired against king Amon; and the people of the land made Josiah his son king in his stead. 25Now the rest of the acts of Amon which he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah ? 26And he was buried [they buried him] in his sepulchre in the garden of Uzza: and Josiah his son reigned in his stead. AND 2 Kings 21:1. Manasseh was twelve years old. It is uncertain whether he was the eldest son of Hezekiah, and whether he had brothers; perhaps his elder brothers had died. “Perhaps a Gebirah (queen-mother) (1 Kings 15:13) assumed authority until he attained to years of discretion” (Thenius). At any rate there is no hint of a regency. The name ηֶ ?τְ ?φִ ?ιΞαָ ?δּ, My-delight-is-in-her, is applied symbolically to Mount Zion in Isaiah 62:4.—From 2 Kings 21:2 we see that the idol-worship which Manasseh introduced was, in the first place, that of Canaan (1 Kings 14:24; 2 Kings 17:8; 2 Kings 16:3).—Luther translates εַ ?ιָּ ?ωָׁ ?αεַ ?ιִּ ?αֶ ?ο, in 2 Kings 21:3, after the Vulg. (conversusque est et �dificavit), and the Sept. (καὶ ἐπέστρεψεκαὶ ᾠκοδόμησε): “und verkehrte sich und bauete” [went astray and built]. The two words, however, form one notion by an idiomatic use: he built again the high places which Hezekiah had removed. For the rest, see 1 Kings 16:32 sq. Ahab was the one who first introduced the worship of Baal and Astarte into Israel [see bracketed notes under Exeg. on 2 Kings 16:3 and 2 Kings 17:16. ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψָ ?δ here refers no doubt to the Astarte-statue mentioned in 2 Kings 21:7. In Chronicles we find the plural αְּ ?ςָ ?μִ ?ιν and ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ. The cause of this may be that each divinity, the male and the female, incorporated several attributes, each of which was separately worshipped. Manasseh introduced also, besides these two chief divinities, the Assyrio-Chaldean star-worship, the adoration of All the host of heaven (see 2 Kings 23:5; 2 Kings 23:11). [See Exeg. on 2 Kings 17:16. Also 2 Kings 23:12 shows that the astral worship, although extended and cultivated by Manasseh, was first introduced by Ahaz.] “This does not imply that the divinities of the Canaanites had no relation to the heavenly bodies, but this relation was subordinate in them” (Movers). From the star-worship arose sooth-saying and magic. Men saw in the stars the originators of all growth and all decay, and adored in them the controllers and directors of all sublunary affairs. 2 Kings 21:4-7 contain a climax. The idolatrous (2 Kings 21:2-3) Manasseh built idol-altars even in the house of the Lord (2 Kings 21:4), and altars also for all the host of heaven, as well in the inner as in the outer court (2 Kings 21:5, εַ ?ιִּ ?αֶ ?ο resumes αָּ ?πָ ?δ in 2 Kings 21:4), nay, he even went so far that he set up the image of Astarte (2 Kings 21:7) inside of the temple, perhaps in the holy place. On the formula: “I will put my name” (2 Kings 21:7) see Exeg. on 1 Kings 14:21. On δֶ ?ςֱ ?αִ ?ιψαָּ ?ΰֵ ?ωׁ see notes on 2 Kings 16:3. Sooth-saying and magic are here united with this idolatrous ceremony as they are in 2 Kings 17:17 (cf. Leviticus 19:26). So also in Deuteronomy 18:10-11, where the necromancers and augurs are also mentioned. Manasseh gave to these persons official position (ςωׂ ?δ is used as in 1 Kings 12:31). On λָּ ?ςַ ?ν see 1 Kings 14:1-20, Hist. § 3. On 2 Kings 21:7 see 1 Kings 8:16; 1 Kings 9:3. The house of Jehovah could not be so utterly desecrated in any otherway as by setting up an idol in the very sanctuary, the “dwelling,” δֵ ?ιλַ ?μχָ ?γְ ?ωְׁ ?κָ (Psalms 5:8; Psalms 79:1). The selection of Israel to be God’s peculiar people was thereby rejected.—The words in 2 Kings 21:8 are explained by 2 Samuel 7:10, and are added in order to make more apparent the greatness of the sin. Jehovah had, at first, only a dwelling in a tent in the midst of His people; afterwards He caused a house to be built for His dwelling, as a physical sign of His covenant with Israel (see the Introd. § 3, and 1 Kings 6, Hist. § 3, b.); and now in this house Manasseh set up an idol.—More evil than did the nations, &c. (2 Kings 21:9). Not because the Canaanitish nations did not keep the law of Moses, but because they only worshipped their own national deities, while the Israelites adopted, not only the gods of the Canaanites, but also those of the Assyrians and Babylonians, and forsook their own God. 2 Kings 21:10. And the Lord spake by His servants, &c. It is impossible to tell which prophets are meant, for no one of those whose writings we possess can be assigned with certainty to the reign of Manasseh. It is not certain that even Isaiah lived during any part of Manasseh’s reign; still less is it certain that Habakkuk did so (though Keil supposes that Habakkuk 1:5 refers to this reign), for it is probable that he first appeared under Josiah (Winer, Delitsch), or under Jehoiakim (Knobel). The Amorites (2 Kings 21:11) stand for Canaanites in general; see notes on 1 Kings 21:26; cf. Ezekiel 16:3; Amos 2:9. The expression: both his ears shall tingle, 2 Kings 21:12, also occurs in 1 Samuel 3:11 and Jeremiah 19:3. As a sharp, discordant note pains one’s ears, so the news of this harsh-punishment shall give pain to all who hear of it. 2 Kings 21:13. And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria. According to Grotius this means: eadem mensura earn metiar, qua Samariam mensus sum. So also Thenius: “Measuring line and plummet are here only symbols for testing by a standard,” for, he says, a building is built with measuring line and plummet, but not torn down with them. However in Isaiah 34:11 we read: He shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion (devastation) and the stones of emptiness [“plummet of desolation,” Bδhr], cf. also Lamentations 2:8. Now in the text before us, also, the reference is to devastation. The two implements of construction are employed where there is an empty space of ground, whether it be that no building has ever stood upon it, or that one which stood there has been torn down. “We have to understand here a state of things symbolized by the latter of” these cases. The metaphor therefore means: I will make Jerusalem even with the ground, like Samaria, so that a measuring line can be drawn over it, and its houses (families) shall perish like the family of Ahab. [Why is a measuring line or a plummet applied to a bare space of ground? Only as a preliminary to building, or re-building, upon it. There is no great applicability, therefore, in the metaphor as Bδhr interprets it.—It means that God will come and apply severe standards of judgment to Jerusalem as He had to Samaria; that He will insist that it shall satisfy these standards; and that He will punish inexorably all shortcomings. Samaria had been thus tested, found wanting, and swept from the face of the earth,—so also should it be with Jerusalem.—W. G. S.] The following figure of the dish is parallel and similar, but stronger if anything. φַ ?μָּ ?ηָ ?δ means really something hollowed out, hence, a dish (2 Chronicles 35:13; Proverbs 19:24), not a wax-tablet (Calmet). Thenius thinks that “the lower city, by its configuration, might well suggest the figure of a dish.” However the fact may be in regard to that, we have not to understand that it was what suggested this figure. Neither is the metaphor that of “a hungry man who empties a dish and turns it wrong side up” (Ewald), but that of a person who, when he no longer wants to use a dish, wipes it out, and turns it over, that not a drop may remain in it. Kimchi expressly states that this was the usage of the Jews with dishes. The figure therefore “implies the complete overthrow and destruction of Jerusalem with all its inhabitants” (Keil). The comparison with a dish also involves some contempt τָּ ?πֵ ?ιδָ is the “upper side, as it were the face, in distinction from the back” (Thenius). 2 Kings 21:14. The remnant of my possession is the two tribes which composed the kingdom of Judah, ten having been led into captivity. πָ ?θַ ?ωׁ, i.e., to abandon, but with the accessory notion of throwing away (1 Kings 8:57; Judges 6:13; Ezekiel 29:5). The nation, when abandoned by Jehovah, necessarily becomes a spoil for its enemies (Isaiah 42:22). 2 Kings 21:16. Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood. This verse is not a “continuation of the extract from the annals which was broken off at 2 Kings 21:9” (Thenius). It is closely connected with what is read in 2 Kings 21:10-15, and forms in a certain sense the crisis of what is narrated of Manasseh. This king not only introduced all sorts of idolatrous worship (2 Kings 21:1-9), but also, when Jehovah rebuked and warned him by His prophets (10–15), he not only did not profit by it, but filled the city with their blood and that of all the innocent persons who sided with them, and opposed his godlessness. τֶּ ?δμָ ?τֶ ?δ as in 2 Kings 10:21 “from one edge to the other.” Josephus (Antiq. x. 3, 1) affirms: πάνταςὠμῶςτοὺςδικαίουςτοὺςἐντοῖς ‘Εβραίοιςἀπέκτεινεν, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τῶνπροφητῶνἔσχεφειδώ· καὶ τούτωνδέτιναςκαθ’ ἡμέρανἀπέσφαξεν. The latter statement does not, of course, apply to the whole duration of his reign; but there may have been a time during which innocent blood was daily shed. According to the Jewish tradition (Guemara Jebam. iv. 13; cf. Sanhedr. f. 103), which was taken up by the church fathers (Tertul. De Patientia 14. August. De Civit. Dei xviii. 24), Isaiah was put to death under Manasseh. It is said that he was sawed in two while fastened in a cedar tree in which he had taken refuge, cf. Hebrews 11:37. [For the details of the legend see Stanley, II. p. 544. But it is doubtful whether he lived under Manasseh Isaiah 1:1 does not say that he lived so long. He must, at any rate, have been very old. It is possible that he may have suffered a martyr’s death, though not in the form asserted (cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 554. Umbreit in Herzog’s Encyc. IV. s. 508 sq.). 2 Kings 21:17. sq. Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, &c. Some further and very important facts in regard to Manasseh are recorded in 2 Chronicles 33:11-20. The historical truth and credibility of what is there recorded has indeed been denied (Gramberg, Winer, Hitzig, and others). On the other hand, Ewald, Thenius, Hδvernick, Keil, and Bertheau, have, with justice, maintained the historical truth of those statements. The Chronicler appeals to the “annals of the, kings of Israel,” and to the γִּ ?αְ ?ψֵ ?ιηεֹ ?ζָ ?ι as his authorities, and the entire Jewish tradition is built upon the facts which he records. “It is not astonishing that we do not find any reference to those facts in the book of Kings, when we consider the brevity of the narrative there given, a brevity which is to be explained by the fact that the author passes as curtly as possible-by all periods of misfortune” (Bertheau). The apparent contradiction between 2 Chronicles 33:15 and 2 Kings 23:12 disappears, if we suppose (what is very possible) that Amon set up again the idols which Manasseh had removed, and that Josiah was the first who entirely did away with them (cf. E. Gerlach in the Studien und Kritiken, 1861, III.). 2 Kings 21:18. In the garden of his own house. “αֵּ ?ιϊεֹ cannot be the royal palace built by Solomon, because the garden belonging to it is called that of Uzzah, evidently referring to its former owner. αֵּ ?ιηεֹ must, therefore, refer to a pleasure-house belonging to Manasseh” (Keil). Thenius thinks that the “garden of Uzzah” (the name occurs several times: 2 Samuel 6:8; 1 Chronicles 8:7; Ezra 2:49; Nehemiah 7:51) was situated “in the Tyrop�on, at the foot of the spur of Ophel.” Robinson finds it on Mt. Zion. See further the notes on 2 Kings 20:21. 2 Kings 21:19. Amon was twenty and two years old when he began to reign. The assertion that this king reigned twelve instead of two years (Ebrard in Stud. und Kritik. 1847, III. s. 644 sq.) rests upon very weak evidence, as Thenius has shown.—The city of Jotbah, from which his mother, Meshullemeth (that is, Friend, sc. of God, = Pia) came, was situated, according to Jerome, in Judah. 2 Kings 21:23. The servants of Amon were unquestionably his court attendants. We have to understand, therefore, that it was a conspiracy in the palace. We cannot determine what causes led to this conspiracy.—By the people of the land (2 Kings 21:24) Thenius understands, here as in 2 Kings 11:14, the military forces of the nation, and he infers that Amon had made himself popular with the troops, and that Josiah had inspired some such hopes as Uzziah once did (2 Kings 14:21). There is no more reason to think of the army here than in 2 Kings 11:14. The murder of the king, who had only ruled for such a short time, by the attendants in the palace, may have embittered the people of Jerusalem so that they took revenge upon the murderers. Religious differences can scarcely have had anything to do with the matter, for the immediate attendants of the idolatrous king certainly did not belong to the persecuted Jehovah-party, and, if the king’s idolatry had been displeasing to the people, they would not have put his murderers to death. — [Supplementary Note on contemporaneous history, with further information as to Manasseh from Assyrian sources. As we approach the catastrophe of the history of Judah it is necessary to pay attention to those movements among neighboring nations which (humanly speaking) caused it, and determined its form. We saw in the Supp. Note on chap. 20 that Sennacherib, having finally reduced Babylon to submission in 682, put his son Esarhaddon on the throne of that city as viceroy; also that Sennacherib was assassinated by two other of his sons in 681. The assassins were obliged to fly; Esarhaddon hastened to Nineveh and ascended the throne. He reigned from 681 to 667. Extensive records of his reign exist in the British Museum, only part of which have, as yet, been published or read (Lenormant). His first campaign was in Syria and Ph�nicia (see Supp. Note on chap. 17). He conquered and plundered Ph�nicia, and deported the inhabitants of Syria. He repopulated the country with Chaldeans and Elamites. During this campaign he attacked Judah; took Manasseh captive, confined him in Babylon for a time, but then set him at liberty and restored him to the throne as a vassal (2 Chronicles 33:11). Manasseh is mentioned on one of his inscriptions as tributary. Esarhaddon became attached to Babylon from his early residence there, and made it his home. That is probably the reason why he took Manasseh there, and not to Nineveh. Esarhaddon’s reign was spent in extensive and successful wars in Asia Minor, Arabia, Egypt (which he conquered), in suppressing stubborn revolts in Chaldea, and in punishing the Elamites and Susianians who assisted in them. We are not here interested in these wars further than this, that the Assyrian power was, during his reign, at its height, but that Babylon kept up a continual resistance. Very much the same state of things continued under his successor. Esarhaddon abdicated in 668 in favor of his son, Asshurbanipal, who reigned until 647. He was warlike and able. Babylon was ruled by his brother, Shamulshamugin, as viceroy, but he revolted and headed an insurrection which included nearly all the tributary provinces. Egypt was permanently lost, Psammetichus becoming king. The remainder of the revolt, however, was speedily suppressed, though it took years to follow up and punish all the parties to it. His successor was his son, Asshuredililani, who reigned from 647 to 625. Under him the Assyrian power declined (Lenormant). See Supp. Note on p. 285. The explanation of the incessant revolts of Babylon is, that that city had a sacred character as the “home of the gods.” It was so regarded by the Assyrians themselves, who knew how ancient it was, and revered it as their own place of origin. This veneration for Babylon served to keep the Babylonians continually restive under the supremacy of Assyria, and also to stay the hands of the conquerors whenever they were ready to destroy the city as a punishment for rebellion. At the point which we have now reached (640), the time of Amon’s death and Josiah’s accession, the Assyrian power had barely begun to decline. The Median empire had been founded by Phraortes in 657. It had secured independence, and had made important conquests in Central Asia. Just about this time Phraortes thought himself strong enough to attack Assyria, but he was totally defeated in 635 (Lenormant). In Egypt, Psammetichus became independent of Assyria, and put an end to the “Dodekarchy,” about 650. Babylon was, for the time being, crushed, but it was only recovering strength for another revolt.—W. G. S.] AND ETHICAL1. King Manasseh’s reign lasted longer than that of any other king in either kingdom, but we have relatively the very briefest account of it. The author restricts himself to a statement of Manasseh’s disposition towards Jehovah and the Jehovah-worship. The explanation of this may be that, in general, “the Old Testament historians pass more hastily over periods which it is sad for them to recall” (Ewald). This shows, however, at the same time, that the disposition towards Jehovah is the main point of interest to the author in the history of each reign, and that everything else is subordinate to this, inasmuch as nothing else touches the soteriological development in the history. Manasseh’s reign forms an epoch in that development, for, under him, the apostasy reached its height. If David was the model king, then Manasseh was his inverted image. It is true that many of his ancestors had tolerated idolatry, and practised it themselves. His grandfather, Ahaz, had even removed the ancient altar of burnt-offering and set up in its place another one which he had himself caused to be made on a heathen pattern, and had also sacrificed his son to Moloch (chap. 16); but Manasseh went so far as even to establish a special place of sacrifice for this god in the valley of Hinnom (2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 19:6). Moreover he set up an idol in the temple itself, and that, too, an image of that goddess whose worship was connected with licentious rites and practices. In fact he made Jerusalem, the city which Jehovah had chosen for His own abode, the place for collecting and practising all forms of idolatry. He was a violent enemy of the Jehovah-worship, which he sought to abolish. He formally introduced all sorts of idolatrous abominations, and he compelled his people to practise them. This had never been done even in the kingdom of the ten tribes, “but now, there arose in Judah, the only remaining support of the true religion, the most open and violent hostility to its most sacred principles, on the part of the king himself! … The heart of the ancient religion had never before been so sharply and violently smitten” (Ewald). The “sin of Manasseh,” in which apostasy reached its culmination, became typical (2 Kings 21:16; 2 Kings 23:26; 2 Kings 24:3; 2 Chronicles 33:9; Jeremiah 15:4), just like the “sin of Jeroboam,” who made Israel to sin by introducing the worship of the calves (1 Kings 12:28 sq.; 2 Kings 14:16; 2 Kings 15:26; 2 Kings 15:30, &c.), and the “way of Ahab,” who first introduced the worship of Baal (1 Kings 16:30 sq.; 1 Kings 22:53; 1 Kings 8:27). “With his reign, therefore, began a new epoch in the history of the kingdom of Judah, during which it moved on steadily towards its fall” (Von Gerlach). Under his rule the kingdom became the very contrary of that which, according to its original plan, it was intended to be (Deuteronomy 17:20). 2. A great change seems to have taken place under Manasseh in the circumstances of the people, when we compare the status under him with that under Hezekiah. No king since David had labored, as Hezekiah did during his reign of twenty-nine years, for the pure and legitimate Jehovah-worship. The people had approved of and participated in his efforts, and had come together from all sides to the passover festival which he instituted (2 Chronicles 30:12-13). The reformation seemed to be thorough and complete; idolatry was forever uprooted. Immediately after his death there was a complete change. The new king made idolatry, with all its abominations, the established religion of the kingdom, and was violent against the national worship and law, and against all who supported them. The people made no opposition to this, but joined in it for a half century. It had indeed come to pass before this time, that the people had fallen into idolatry which was favored by the rulers, as, for instance, under Athaliah and Ahaz, but such a general and complete change, especially after the saving power of Jehovah had just been so clearly and startlingly manifested, has no parallel in history. Yet this remarkable fact is explained, although no explanation of it is offered in the historical books, when we take into consideration the descriptions of the state of things at that time which are offered by the prophets. There had been for a long time, at least since the reign of Ahaz, a party in Judah which sought support for the little kingdom from one of the two great world-monarchies of the time—either from Egypt or Assyria. The persons of rank, and office, and wealth, and influence especially belonged to this party. They had adopted heathen notions, and had fallen into immoral and licentious modes of life. Isaiah says of the people, even before Manasseh’s accession: “The whole head is sick and the-whole heart faint,” &c. (Isaiah 1:4-6). King Hezekiah had held this party in restraint, and had therefore been supported by the prophet Isaiah. After the death of the pious king and the great prophet, the opposition made a strenuous effort to control the policy of the nation. It was not difficult to insnare and seduce the king, a boy of twelve years, especially as he appears to have been inclined by nature to sensual enjoyments. When he was once caught he became the seducer of his people, while he himself sank lower and lower. It appears, therefore, that Hezekiah’s reformation was one accomplished by external pressure. It did not spring naturally from a religious need which was deeply felt in the popular heart. It had, therefore, no firm ground, and the cultus continued to be only an external ceremony. On the other hand, the luxurious and sensuous idol-worship was far better adapted to please the people than the austere Jehovah-worship. We have-still further to take into consideration the inconsistent character of the people (Deuteronomy 9:12-13; Deuteronomy 31:20; Deuteronomy 32:6; Isaiah 1:2-3, &c.), at one moment obstinate, at the next fickle and capricious. If we take all this into consideration, the sudden change under Manasseh is not so astonishing, but is satisfactorily explained by the circumstances. Duncker’s conception of the course of the development of the national religion (Gesch. des Alterthums, I. s. 502) is entirely false. He asserts that for the first two centuries after the settlement of the Hebrews in Palestine the worship of Jehovah and that of Syrian divinities existed side by side; that the first Hebrew prophets opposed with the most violent zeal and fanaticism the introduction of the Baal-worship; that then the later prophets opposed the deepened and sharpened conception of the national. God to the renewed attempt of idolatry to find a foothold and succeeded in keeping it out; and that now, under Manasseh, these two hostile tendencies once more appeared in open conflict. This conception, which overturns the entire soteriological development, rests upon the assumption that, in Israel, monotheism and polytheism stood originally side by side in equal honor. It cannot be established unless we strike Moses out of history, throw aside the Israelitish law—the constitution of the nation, deny the calling of the nation in human history, and make of the prophets fanatical disturbers of the public peace. Ewald has explained the changed circumstances under Manasseh somewhat differently (Gesch. III. 666 [third Ed. 716 sq.]). He says: “He [Manasseh] sought to become acquainted with all foreign heathen religions, and to introduce them into Judab. He therefore sent to the most distant lands wherever a celebrated worship was practised, and spared no pains to acquire it. Every new religion brought not only a new form of oracle, or of sensuous indulgence and lust, but also its own form of wisdom, and the desire for ‘wisdom’ had grown so much since the time of Solomon, that it is not strange if the desire awoke to learn the secrets of all religions, and so to acquire a wealth of wisdom which the simple Jehovah religion did not seem to offer. Then, too, Manasseh sought to make all these religions accessible and agreeable to the people.” It would appear then, on this showing, that the abominable and unheard-of apostasy of Manasseh and his people, the cultus of licentiousness and child-sacrifice, the cultivation of augury and sooth-saying, the patronage of necromancers and augurs, and all the rest of his senseless, superstition, arose from a desire for wisdom, and a wish to penetrate into all secrets, and become acquainted with all knowledge. No proof is needed to show that this conception contradicts the Scriptures flatly. There is no hint in them that Manasseh sent into foreign lands to import heathen religions. “Isaiah 57:5-10; Jeremiah 2:10-13,” from which this is said to be evident, does not contain a word about it. Manasseh did not, for instance, borrow anything from Egypt. He introduced especially the cultus of the “nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel” (2 Kings 21:9), that is of the Canaanites. Neither is there any proof that he tried to make the heathen religions acceptable to the people; on the contrary, he used violence and shed innocent blood, so that Jerusalem was filled with it from one end to the other (2 Kings 21:16). [The Scriptures contain no explanation of the facility with which the people followed and acquiesced in the different attitudes of different kings toward the Jehovah religion, whether they were enthusiastically faithful or fanatically hostile. It does not seem worth while, therefore, to wage a polemic against an hypothesis like this of Ewald, which certainly has as much, if not more, in its favor than the one offered by the author. Ewald’s theory does not “flatly contradict” Scripture, because Scripture makes no statement in regard to the matter. The passages quoted from Isaiah and Jeremiah bear very strong testimony to such a disposition on the part of the people to follow strange gods, to go to a distance to seek strange forms of worship, and to take up with any foreign novelty or device rather than to adhere to their own religion. The “wisdom” of the ancients was almost always bound up in religion. It was the “mystery” at the heart of a cultus. It was esoteric and select, only imparted to the chosen few. It had the fascination, therefore, of an acquisition in knowledge and of the discovery of a secret closely kept by an elect few. It was at once a sign of the truth of the Jehovah-religion and a reason why the Hebrews were so easily led to despise it in comparison with the religions of the heathen, that it was simple and open. No doubt also it seemed to them hard and cold and austere. The heathen religions were warm, voluptuous, and ζsthetic. The latter, therefore, had all the weaknesses of human nature on their side of the balance. Still further, it is very-probable that Manasseh did introduce Egyptian novelties. The name of his son Amon is the strongest testimony to a familiarity with and taste for Egyptian religion. 2 Kings 21:9 does not say that he introduced Canaanitish gods, but that he made the Jews sin worse than the Canaanites, probably by practising still more foreign and abominable rites. See Exegetical notes on that verse. Moreover the idols which are enumerated in 2 Kings 23:13 as having been destroyed by Josiah bear witness to the fact that Manasseh had sought out and introduced numerous foreign divinities of various kinds. Finally, the shedding of innocent blood does not prove that he did not try to make heathenism acceptable to his people. Persecution always has the aim to recommend the rival of the persecuted religion, strange and unwise as the attempt may be. There are, therefore, suggestions in this theory of Ewald which are well worth attention from any one who desires to understand the phenomenon in question, and the counter-considerations above adduced have little if any force.—W. G. S.] 3. The reign of Manasseh was, to say the least, the saddest period in Jewish history since the time of David. We hear of no important events, of no victory over enemies, of no extension of the frontier, of no new beneficent institutions, during his time. The only event recorded is that an Assyrian army took Manasseh prisoner and carried him away in chains to Babylon (2 Chronicles 33:11). The nation had never before sunk so low, religiously and morally, as at this time. “In the national life the most terrible decay extended continually farther and farther.” A “deep and deadly corruption” had affected the nation (Eisenlohr, Das Volk Isr. II. s. 310). The wildest superstition and the coarsest unbelief went hand in hand. The corruption had pervaded all ranks. “Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city!” cries the prophet Zephaniah. “She obeyed not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in the Lord; she drew not near to her God. Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones until the morrow [they spare not for the morrow]. Her prophets are light and treacherous persons; her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law” (Zephaniah 3:1-4; cf. Micah 3:11). The origin of many important parts of the Old Testament canon has recently been ascribed to this time of corruption, decay, moral disease, and death. First of all, the book of Deuteronomy is said to have been written at this time (Ewald, Riehm, Bleek), also the book of Job, an entire series of the most noble Psalms, part of the Proverbs, and detached fragments of the book of Isaiah, especially Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12 (Ewald and Eisenlohr). It is said: “The deeper the corruption became and the farther it spread the more decidedly did the genuine spirit of prophecy rise up, with all the divine force with which it was endowed, in opposition to it.” This is not the place to enter into a critical investigation of the time when these books were written. We have to do here only with the time of Manasseh, but in regard to it the test applies: “Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?” It is true that faithful servants and prophets of Jehovah were not wanting at this time (2 Kings 21:10), but not a single great prophet, not one of those whose writings we still possess, was active during Manasseh’s reign. Isaiah’s life closed soon after his accession, if not indeed still earlier. Zephaniah’s first appearance was in Josiah’s reign, and Jeremiah’s still later. How could a time of “deep corruption,” which ran through all ranks of society, be a time of great literary activity and produce works of the intellect which are only possible in the midst of the richest and most active intellectual life? It has been justly said that this was a time in which “bloody persecution raged.” Blood flowed in streams. Of course this persecution fell first of all upon the prophets, and especially upon the most prominent amongst them. The number of the faithful must, therefore, have been small, and we know of not a single prominent person amongst them. It may be that in this small circle hymns of affliction and persecution arose, but it is inconceivable that such persons should have produced the book of Job, that “model of religious reflection, and of the literary art which proceeds in its creations according to the most definite plan,” and which marks the “Chokmah-literature” of the Hebrews (Delitsch). Still less can the book of Deuteronomy have been written at this time of oppression and misery, a book which is described as marked by “a tranquil fulness of detail,” “an extraordinarily light and flowing style,” as well as by “breadth and fluency” (Vaihinger). In its long repetition and development of the Mosaic Law there is not a sign of lamentation, nor a sound of affliction. It might be asserted with far more justice that there was no period in Hebrew history less capable of producing the book of Deuteronomy than the degenerate times of Manasseh. 4. The brief reign of king Amon was in every respect a continuation of the wicked and untheocratic reign of his father, Manasseh. It was distinguished by no fact or event. From the words, 2 Chronicles 33:23 [see Supp. Note after the Exeg. section above]: “And humbled not himself before the Lord, as Manasseh his father had humbled himself, but Amon trespassed more and more,” we infer that he was even worse than Manasseh. The description of the moral and religious status which is given by the prophet Zephaniah, who made his appearance under the next following king, Josiah (Zephaniah 1:1; Zephaniah 1:4 sq.; 12; 2 Kings 3:1 to 2 Kings 5:11), shows that no improvement had taken place. This also appears from the description in 2 Kings 23:4 sq. of all the steps which Josiah had to take in order to restore the state of things prescribed by the Law. The statement of the Chronicler (l. c.) in regard to Manasseh’s reformation must, therefore, be understood as referring to his own person, for it had no effect upon the mass of the people, else it would have been impossible to say that Amon had surpassed his father’s guilt. [The meaning of that passage is that Manasseh, in spite of all his wickedness, humbled himself and repented, but Amon never did so. He persisted in his wickedness. He went on from trespass to trespass without interruption. Hence he was worse than his father.] AND 2 Kings 21:1-16. The Kingdom of Judah under Manasseh. (a) King and People (return to heathenism and the cause thereof, 2 Kings 21:1-9). (b) The Prophets (their courageous opposition and their testimony against the general corruption in spite of persecution, 2 Kings 21:10-16). 2 Kings 21:1-9. Manasseh the seduced and the seducer.—Even God-fearing parents often have perverse children without any fault of their own. So much the greater is the guilt of those who lead infant children astray, after the death of their parents, instead of giving them care and good training. It is especially important that princes should be guided in their youth by good counsellors and governors. God is not confined with His word to any land or people. If His word is not received with love and gratitude, and if it is not feared, then He will come soon and remove the candlestick from its place (Revelation 2:5), so that men may go astray and become a prey to terrible errors. As Judah, which the Lord had chosen to be His people and to bear His name before the heathen, and before kings, and before the children of Israel, committed more terrible abominations than any of the heathen whom the Lord had cast out, so now also, a people, although it has the word of God and the means of grace, may fall lower than another which has never heard of His word (e.g., the horrors of the French revolution).—To fall is easier than to rise. If the infection comes from above it spreads with greater celerity. Where God punishes a people he gives them bad rulers (Isaiah 3:4; Ecclesiastes 10:16).—When the evil spirit is cast out and then returns, he brings with him seven others worse than himself. It is so with individuals, and it is so with families; they become worse and worse from generation to generation (Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh), Matthew 12:43 sq.—Wόrt. Summ.: There are nowadays Evangelical Christians who are in many respects worse than Papists, or even than Jews and Turks, for they curse and blaspheme, they drink and commit adultery, and do other things which Turks and Jews avoid. How will such Christians stand before God’s judgment-seat when Jews and Turks are placed by their side?—Cramer: Those who are ungrateful towards God, and blind to the clear light of truth, are given over to the dominion of error, so that they give their faith to falsehoods (2 Thessalonians 2:11). 2 Kings 21:6. The Scriptures place sooth-saying and augury by the side of sacrifices to Moloch. They belong properly to the darkest times of heathenism. Nevertheless they are found in the midst of modern Christendom. Those who believe in them and practise them have become heathen. 2 Kings 21:7. Calw. Bibel: Ahaz had once closed the temple and built altars in the city. Manasseh set up idols in the temple itself. Thus Antichrist shall advance (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).—Manasseh set up an image of the goddess of licentiousness in the temple of the living God. “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy” (1 Corinthians 3:17). Those houses of God are desecrated in which, instead of the living God who revealed Himself to us in Christ, a God of man’s invention is preached. 2 Kings 21:8. Starke: Men are such that they hold fast the covenant of God’s rich promises, but will not remember the other covenant of the obedience which He requires. 2 Kings 21:10. Even in the worst times God takes care (since He does not desire that any one should perish, but rather that he should turn from his wickedness and live, Ezekiel 18:23) that faithful persons shall not be wanting to warn the wicked, to exhort them to repentance, and to make known to them the coming judgment of God. 2 Kings 21:12-13. Wόrt. Summ.: The just God threatens the idolatrous city, Jerusalem, with the line and plummet of Samaria;—like sins deserve like punishment (Luke 23:41).—The Lord is “good” and “ready to forgive” (Psalms 86:5), but He does not cease to be a just God, who causes every individual as well as whole cities and peoples to reap that which they have sown, for “righteousness and judgment are the habitation [foundation] of his throne” (Psalms 97:2). This generation wants to hear only of a God who is nothing but love, but it will not hear, in spite of its apostasy, of a God who is also a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29). Whose ears tingle nowadays when he hears of the judgments of God? (Hebrews 10:26-27).—Berleb. Bibel: A dish is turned over when there is nothing more in it. That is the hardest punishment which God can inflict on a soul which turns away from Him. There is then no longer a drop to be found in it of that which was in it before. 2 Kings 21:16. Starke: Idolatry and tyranny are closely allied.—Osiander: Those whom Satan has in his toils he leads from one sin to another. Enmity to the word of God is not merely a different opinion or contradiction in regard to religious matters, but a devilish power which impels even to the shedding of innocent blood. It is possible to kill the preachers of truth, but not the truth itself. He who was the truth was nailed to the cross, but His words remain, though heaven and earth pass away. The blood of the martyrs only fertilized the soil of the Church, so that it has borne richer and more abundant fruit.—All innocent blood cries to heaven as that of Abel did. He who dwells in heaven answers: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” 2 Kings 21:19-26. How wretchedly a king appears of whom history has nothing more to record than his godlessness.—Wόrt. Summ.: When men will not heed either good words or bad, and will not be induced to repent by warning or example, then God comes with His punishment and recompenses wickedness as it deserves. Let men take heed and repent, let them become wise by the sight of others’ calamities, that they be not overtaken in their sins by death before they have repented. As is the king so are his officers; as is the governor so are the citizens; a depraved king ruins his country (Sir 10:2-3).—Wόrt. Summ.: Unfaithfulness is punished by unfaithfulness. Amon was not faithful to God; unfaithfulness was his punishment. He was murdered by his own servants, and these in their turn were punished by their own sin—they also were murdered. (See Matthew 26:52; Luke 6:28.) Therefore be faithful both to God and man and do good, then thou shalt be rewarded with good both in time and eternity. Tumult and murder, perpetrated now by the authorities, now by the people, those are the natural fruits which are produced in a land which has abandoned God, and in which His word is no longer respected. Footnotes: 2 Kings 21:4. [ΰωׁ ?ψ accus. after a verb of speaking, denoting that in respect to which. Cf. 2 Kings 21:7 and Genesis 22:14 (Ew. § 282, a. 2). 2 Kings 21:6. [That is, he trained men by special education for this work and then gave them official position. 2 Kings 21:6. [The flow of the narrative is arrested in this verse in order to enumerate Manasseh’s faults. Hence the use of the perf. consec. Ew. § 342, 6, 1. 2 Kings 21:8. [ψַ ?χΰִ ?ν, if only, cf. Deuteronomy 15:5; 1 Kings 8:25. 2 Kings 21:8. [εּ ?μְ ?λָ ?μεβε.—”That which I commanded” and “the law which Moses commanded” are not two different things. εּ ?μְ ?λָ ?μ serves to gather up and recapitulate, so that it is equivalent to “namely” or “I mean,” cf. Genesis 9:10; Genesis 23:10; 1 Chronicles 13:1; 1 Chronicles 28:1 : 2 Chronicles 7:21 (μְ is wanting in 1 Kings 9:8); Ezra 1:5; Jeremiah 19:13 (Ew. 310, a). 2 Kings 21:12. [The chetib presents an irregularity of gender, the masc. suff. referring to ψςδ. The keri corrects this. 2 Kings 21:13. [“The perf. ξָ ?ηָ ?δ is very noticeable, especially in view of the accents. We should expect ξָ ?ηֹ ?δ and that it would be connected with what follows” (Ew. s. 833, nt. 2).—W. G. S.] B.—The Reign of Josiah; the Discovery of the Boo k of the Law, and Restoration of the Mosaic Ritual2 Kings 22:1 to 2 Kings 23:30 (2 Chronicles 34, 35)1Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign [became king], and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath. 2And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left. 3And it came to pass in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, that the king sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the house of the Lord, saying, 4Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the silver which is [has been] brought into the house of the Lord, which the keepers of the door have gathered of the people: 5And let them deliver it [and may deliver it] into the hand of the doers of the work [commissioners], that have the oversight of the house of the Lord: and let them give it to the doers of the work, which is [who are] in the house of the Lord, to repair the breaches of the house, 6Unto carpenters, and builders, and masons, and to buy timber and hewn 7stone to repair the house. Howbeit, there was [But let] no reckoning [be] made with them of the money that was [is] delivered into their hand, because [for] they dealt [deal] faithfully. 8And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 9And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered [emptied out] the money that was found [stored] in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work [the commissioners], that have the oversight of the house of the Lord. 10And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. 11And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. 12And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the 13scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king’s, saying, Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me [on my behalf] and for [on behalf of] the people, and for [on behalf of] all Judah, concerning [on account of] the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us [prescribed for us].14So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college 15[lower city];) and they communed with her. And she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me, 16Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will [am about to] bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read: 17Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be [is] kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched. 18But to the king of Judah which sent you to inquire of the Lord, thus shall ye say to him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, As touching the words which thou hast heard; 19Because thine heart was tender, and thou hast humbled [humbledst] thyself before the Lord, when thou heardest what I spake [had spoken] against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard thee [omit thee] saith the Lord. 20Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place. And they brought the king word again. 2 Kings 23:1 And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem. 2And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was [had been] found in the house of the Lord. 3And the king stood by a pillar [or on a platform], and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies [ordinances] and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform [maintain] the words [terms] of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to [joined in] the covenant. 4And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the grove [Astarte], and for all the host of heaven: and he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried the ashes of them unto Beth-el. 5And he put down [caused to desist] the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in [of] the cities of Judah, and in the places [omit in the places] round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets [constellations of the Zodiac], and to all the host of heaven. 6And he brought out the grove [Astarte-image] from the house of the Lord, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast. the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people [common people]. 7And he brake down the houses of the sodomites [male-prostitutes], that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove [tent-like shrines for Astarte]. 8And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba, and brake down the high places of the gates [both] that were [which was] in the entering in of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, [and that] which were [was] on a man’s left hand at the gate of the city. 9Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to [were not allowed to sacrifice upon] the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat of the [omit of the] unleavened bread among their brethren. 10And he defiled Topheth, which is the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech. 11And he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entering in of the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the suburbs [colonnade of the temple], and burned the chariots of the sun with fire. 12And the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord, did the king beat down [demolish], and brake [tear] them [omit them] down from thence, and [he] cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron. 13And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth [or Astarte] the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile. 14And he brake in pieces the images, and cut down the groves [Astarte-statues], and filled their places with the bones of men. 15Moreover the altar that was at Beth-el, and [omit and] the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, both that altar and the high place he brake down, and burned the high place, and stamped it small to powder, and burned the grove [statue of Astarte]. 16And as Josiah turned himself, he spied the sepulchres that were there in the mount, and sent, and took the bones out of the sepulchres, and burned them upon the altar, and polluted it, according to the word of the Lord which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these words. 17Then he said. What title [grave-stone] is that that I see? And the men of the city told him, It is the sepulchre of the man of God, which came from Judah, and proclaimed [foretold] these things that thou hast done against the altar of Beth-el. 18And he said, Let him alone; let no man move his bones. So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet that came out of Samaria. 19And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke the Lord to anger, Josiah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he had done in Beth-el. 20And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there [,] upon the altars, and burned men’s bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem. 21And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the Lord your God, as it is written in the [this] book of this [the] covenant. 22Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah; 23But in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, wherein [omit, and wherein] this passover was holden to the Lord in Jerusalem. 24Moreover the workers with familiar spirits [necromancers], and the wizards, and the [household] images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform [establish] the words of the law, which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord. 25And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him. 26Notwithstanding, the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal. 27And the Lord said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there. 28Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 29In his days Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him. 30And his servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own sepulchre. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his father’s stead. REMARKSThe parallel account in the book of Chronicles coincides perfectly with the above in all its details. In some passages, indeed, it is identically the same (2 Kings 22:8-20; 2 Kings 23:1-3 compared with 2 Chronicles 34:19-32); but the Chronicler cannot have made use of the book of Kings as his authority, for he gives a number of chronological data, and also certain proper names (2 Chronicles 34:3; 2 Chronicles 34:8; 2 Chronicles 34:12; 2 Chronicles 35:8-9), which are wanting in the book of Kings, and which cannot possibly have been invented at a later time. The case is the same with this passage as with 2 Kings 11:1-20. Both accounts are taken from one and the same original source, viz., the work which both refer to at the close of the passage (2 Kings 23:28; 2 Chronicles 35:27). Their principal points of difference are two; viz., that each one describes in great detail certain ones of the facts noticed, which in their turn are passed over more summarily by the other, and that the facts are not narrated by both in the same chronological order. In the book of Kings the extirpation of idolatry and of illegitimate Jehovah-worship is described with care and detail, so that the passage here which deals with this point (2 Chronicles 23:4-20) is, as regards its external form, longer than the corresponding one in Chronicles; moreover, as regards its contents, it is by far the most important passage in the entire narrative, all that goes before it (2 Chronicles 22:3-12 and 2 Chronicles 23:1-3) serving only as an historical introduction, and all which follows (2 chron23:21–24) only as the conclusion and sequel to it. In Chronicles, on the other hand, the description of the passover festival is the object of greatest interest, as is evident, in the first place, from the fulness with which it is given (2 Chronicles 35:1-19), while the extirpation of the false worship is very briefly recorded. [This is in accord with what we observe in general in regard to the characteristics of the two books. The book of Kings attaches the interest to the religious and theocratic features of the history, while the book of Chronicles is especially interested in its ecclesiastical details. In Kings we have the history studied from the standpoint of the prophets; in Chronicles, from that of the levitical priesthood. In Kings we find those details especially prominent which refer to ethical, religious, and monotheistic truth; in Chronicles the fortunes of the priesthood, and the ritualistic and hierarchical developments, are all fastened upon and described in detail.—W. G. S.] Evidently these fundamental charactisterics of the two authors present themselves in their accounts of this reign. The older author gives us an account from his theocratic and pragmatic standpoint. He desires to show that king Josiah stands alone in the history of the Jewish kings, in that he carried out in practice and execution the fundamental law of the theocracy with a zeal and severity equalled by none of his predecessors or successors (2 Kings 23:24-25. The statement is wanting in Chronicles.) The latter author, on the contrary, adopts the levitical and priestly standpoint. He desires to show that the passover had not been so solemnly or correctly celebrated since the time of Samuel as it was under Josiah. For this reason we must regard the account in Kings as more important, and use that in Chronicles merely as a valuable complement to it.—As for the chronological succession of the events, the author of the book of Kings puts the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign at the head of the narrative. He says that the repair of the temple, during which the Book of the Law was found, took place in this year; that the reading of this book agitated the king so much that he sought higher guidance in regard to it; that he, after this guidance had been given him through the prophetess Huldah, collected the people and bound them to observe the covenant prescribed in this book; that he then proceeded to extirpate all false worship, and abolish idolatry, first in Jerusalem and Judah, and then in Samaria, and when he had accomplished this, that he ordained an observance of the passover according to the strict prescriptions of the book. It must be admitted that this is a sequence of events in which each one follows naturally and necessarily from the preceding. The Chronicler, on the other hand, begins his account with these words: “In the eighth year of his [Josiah’s] reign, while he was a boy [πַ ?ςַ ?ψ], he commenced to seek the God of his father David, and in his twelfth year he commenced to purify Judah and Jerusalem from the high-places, and the Astarte-images, and the idols of stone and the molten images, and they tore down before him the altars of the Baalim,” &c. After the same had been done in “the land of Israel” he “returned to Jerusalem” (2 Chronicles 34:3-7). After this followed, still in the eighteenth year, the repair of the temple, during which the Book of the Law was found. This occasioned the oracle of the prophetess and the oath of fidelity to the covenant from the assembled people. Immediately after the description of the last event follows the remark: “And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all who were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God” (2 Chronicles 34:33). Then, in chap. 35, follows the description of the passover. The chronicler, therefore, puts the extirpation of idolatry before the repair of the temple and the discovery of the Book of the Law, and before the oath of fidelity to the covenant. This cannot, however, be the correct chronological sequence of the events, for the incentive which moved Josiah to collect the people and exact an oath of fidelity to the covenant from them was the threats of the newly discovered Law-book. Such an oath would have been useless and destitute of significance if every illegitimate cultus had already been abolished. The chronicler seems to have perceived this himself, for he repeats, in brief and condensed form, after the narrative of the discovery of the book, and after the public oath of fidelity, the statement of the reformation in the cultus which he had already given in 2 Chronicles 22:4-7. On the other hand, his definite chronological statements in 2 Chronicles 22:3 : In the eighth and in the twelfth years of Josiah, statements which are wanting in the book of Kings, cannot be pure inventions of his own, especially if it is true that the sixteenth year of life, that is, in this case, the eighth year of the reign, was “the year in which, according to numerous indications, the king’s sons became of age” (Ewald). It is also unlikely that the king, who had been remarkable for his piety from his youth up, should have suddenly undertaken such a startling reformation in the eighteenth year of his reign. The repair of the temple previous to the discovery of the book shows that he was disposed to foster the Jehovah-worship. What he did in his eighth and twelfth years may have been a commencement and preparation for what he carried out in his eighteenth year with thoroughness and severity, being impelled by the threats contained in the book which had been discovered. This eighteenth year was, therefore, the real year of the reformation, the year in which there was a complete change in the religious worship of the nation, and in which Josiah accomplished the work by virtue of which he stands alone in the history of the kingdom. This is the reason why the author of the book of Kings puts this date at the head of his narrative, omitting any mention of the eighth and twelfth years, and also repeats it at the close (2 Kings 23:23). The chronicler, on the contrary, who only mentions the abolition of the illegal and illegitimate worship in the briefest manner, desired to add to his statement that Josiah “began” in his twelfth year “to purify Judah and Jerusalem” the further information how he carried this out, although somewhat later, in the land of Israel also. This uncertainty in the arrangement of the historical material is due to the imperfectness of the art of the historian, and it is not right to ascribe to the account in general, as De Wette does, “distortion of the sense, confusedness, and obscurity.” Neither is it by any means correct to assert, as Keil and Movers do, that “the account of the chronicler is, on the whole, more correct, chronologically,” for it is not possible that the abolition of idolatry, even in Judah, should have taken place before the discovery of the Law-book, as 2 Chronicles 34:6-7 seems to assert. The assertion that “not all the events mentioned in this account (2 Kings 22:3 to 2 Kings 23:23) could have taken place in the one eighteenth year,” especially seeing that the passover feast belonged in the commencement and not at the end of the year (Keil), is not founded on conclusive arguments, for the eighteenth year is a year of the reign, not a calendar year, and its end may very well have fallen at the commencement of the calendar year; moreover, we do not see why the work of destruction might not have been accomplished in one year, seeing that it met with no opposition. Thenius even thinks that it was accomplished “in a period of four months.” [Nevertheless, as Keil says (Comm. s. 352): “If we take in review the separate events and incidents which are narrated in this passage, the repair of the temple, the discovery of the Law-book, the reading of it to the king, the inquiry of the prophetess and her oracle, the reading of the book to the people in the temple with the renewal of the covenant, the abolition of idolatry not only in Judah, but also in Bethel and the other cities of Samaria, and, finally, the passover festival, it is hardly necessary to remark that all this cannot have taken place in the one eighteenth year of his reign.”] It is not necessary to suppose, as Bertheau does, that both narratives are chronologically inaccurate, inasmuch as “events are included in the narrative [2 Chronicles 23:4-20] which belong to the time before the eighteenth year.” It is certain that Josiah “began” to reform before his eighteenth year, but the events mentioned in 2 Chronicles 34:4-7 belong not to this time, but to the eighteenth year, and there is no reason to transfer to the time before this year events which belong to this year itself. [The author’s opinion is, therefore, that Josiah’s undertaking to repair the temple bears witness to his disposition to reform the cultus, and that this, in connection with the assertion of the chronicler that he made certain efforts to this end in his twelfth year, forces us to the conviction that the reformation commenced before the eighteenth year of the reign, but that those efforts in this direction which he is said by the chronicler to have made before his eighteenth year really belong to that year, including all the reformatory measures of which the Scripture has preserved a record.—W. G. S.] AND 2 Kings 22:1. Josiah was eight years old, &c. Amon was twenty-four years old when he died (2 Kings 21:19). He must have begotten Josiah when he was only sixteen years old. This is not astonishing in view of the early marriages which are common in the Orient (see notes on 2 Kings 16:2). Whether the young king was under a regency, or had an elderly man as tutor and governor, as Joash did (2 Kings 12:3), is not stated. We know nothing of Boscath, the birth-place of his mother, except that it was in the plain of Judah (Joshua 15:39). 2 Kings 22:2 characterizes in general the reign of Josiah, and forms, as it were, the title of the entire following passage. The expression: “Turned not aside to the right hand or to the left” (see Deuteronomy 5:32; Deuteronomy 17:11; Deuteronomy 17:20; Deuteronomy 28:14) is only used of this king in this book.—On the chronological date: “in the eighteenth year,” see Preliminary Remarks. The addition in the Sept.: ἐντῷ μηνὶ τῷ ὀγδόῳ, is not found anywhere else, and does not deserve any attention. In Chronicles (2 Chronicles 34:8) two other persons are mentioned whom the king sent with Shaphan, Maaseiah, the governor, and Joah, the recorder. Shaphan alone is mentioned here, as he was the one who had charge of the money. The others were merely companions. On ρֹ ?τֶ ?ψ, see notes on 1 Kings 4:3. 2 Kings 22:4. Go up to Hilkiah, the high-priest, &c. Since the time of Joash (2 Kings 12:5), a period of 250 years, the temple had not been repaired. It had, therefore, become very much dilapidated. Josiah went to work according to the precedent established by Joash. “The fact that we find here almost the same account as in 2 Kings 12:11 sq. is due to the similarity of the two incidents, and is perfectly natural, so that it cannot be regarded as a proof that the account is untrue (Stδhelin, Krit. Untersuch. s. 156)” (Thenius). The account is here somewhat abbreviated and presupposes some things which are there distinctly stated. The author only mentions the temple-repairs because they brought the Law-book to light. The high-priest Hilkiah is mentioned in the list of the high-priests, and is designated as the son of Shallum (1 Chronicles 6:13). Nothing further is known in regard to him. Many have supposed that he was the father of the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1), (Eichhorn, Von Bohlen, and Menzel), but this is certainly an error, as Hitzig in the prolegomena to his Comm. on Jeremiah has shown. ιַ ?ϊֵּ ?ν is hifil from ϊָּ ?ξַ ?ν, and means, to make perfect (see Fόrst s. v.) not, to pay (Gesen.). [This money was the result of offerings which came in slowly and steadily. The force of ιַ ?ϊֵּ ?ν is to take up the money which had been paid in up to this time, make an account and settlement, and so finish up, make complete, the sum on hand. The E. V. “sum” is, therefore, quite accurate.—W. G. S.] Hilkiah’s duty in the circumstances was that which is described more fully in 2 Kings 12:10 sq. The conjecture εַ ?ηֲ ?ϊֹ ?ν, i. e., and seal up (Thenius) is entirely unnecessary. The translation of the Sept., χωνεύσατε, is incorrect. So is also that of the Vulg.: confletur pecunia. According to 2 Chronicles 34:9 the money was paid in “by Manasseh and Ephraim, and all the remnant of Israel, as well as by all Judah and Benjamin, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” The names of the commissioners or inspectors are also given there (2 Kings 22:12), but they have no further interest or importance. 2 Kings 22:8. I have found the book of the Law in the house of the Lord. The emphasis lies here, as the position of the words [Hebr. text] shows, on ρֵ ?τֶ ?ψδַ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?δ, words which can only be translated “the book of the Law,” according to the familiar rule: “If a compound notion, expressed by a governing noun and a dependent genitive, has to have the article, this is regularly placed before the genitive, but it then affects the entire compound” (Gesenius, Gramm. § 109, 1 [19th Ed. § 111, 1]; Ewald, Lehrb. § 290, a, 1). ξָ ?φָ ?ΰ is here emphatic, and does not mean, to fall in with something which is known to be somewhere at hand, but to discover something which is concealed (cf. Levit. 5:22 and 23 [English text Leviticus 6:3-4], where we find with it ΰֲ ?αֵ ?γָ ?δ, i.e., something lost). [ξָ ?φָ ?ΰ means to find in three different senses: (a) to find a thing of whose existence one has knowledge, and which one therefore seeks for; (b) to find, by accident, a thing whose existence was known, but which had for some time been lost sight of; (c) to find a new thing which one never had seen or heard of before. The author thinks that the second meaning is the one which it has here. Ewald, quoted immediately below, takes it in the third sense.—W. G. S.] We see in the course of the narrative that this book is always referred to as that which had been “found” [i.e., rescued from concealment] (2 Kings 22:13; 2 Kings 23:2; 2 Kings 23:24; 2 Chron. 34:14; 21:30). It is, therefore, arbitrary and violent of Ewald, who established the above rule, to give to these words, on account of other considerations, the “indefinite sense:” “Hilkiah also (!) spoke with Shaphan about a (!) book of the law which he said he had found in the temple,” and to assert in the note: “There is no possible reference here to an old already known, and now only rediscovered, book of the Law.” The appeal to ρֵ ?τֶ ?ψ (2 Kings 22:10) has no force, for there δַ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?δ is to be supplied from 2 Kings 22:8, for Hilkiah had already definitely described it as the book of the Law, and Shaphan brought it to the king as such. [We have no right to interpolate the δַ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?δ in 2 Kings 22:10. The fact is rather as follows: In 2 Kings 22:8 Hilkiah calls it “the book of the Law,” because he is convinced that it is so; in 2 Kings 22:10 Shaphan presents it to the king as a book, in regard to whose character he does not himself express any opinion, nor desire to raise any prejudice. It is simply an interesting book deserving the king’s attention and examination. Such is the true meaning of the text as it stands with δַ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?δ in Hilkiah’s description, but omitted in Shaphan’s. We obliterate this feature of the narrative if we supply δϊεψδ in 2 Kings 22:10.—W. G. S.] Thenius justly says, in contradiction of Ewald: “The expression shows distinctly that it refers to a book which was known in earlier times, not to one which had now for the first time come to light,” and Bunsen says: “It certainly refers to a work which had been previously known.” Nothing but the critic’s preconceived notion could lead him to contradict this. Now there can be no doubt as to what is meant by the expression ρֵ ?τֶ ?εδַ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?δ, for it is the well-known technical expression for the books of Moses as a whole. In the parallel passage in Chronicles we read (2 Chronicles 34:14): “Hilkiah, the priest, found ΰֶ ?ϊΞρֵ ?τֶ ?ψϊּ ?εֹ ?ψַ ?ϊΞιְ ?δεָֹ ?δαְּ ?ιַ ?γΞξωֶׁ ?δ,” and according to Deuteronomy 31:24-26, Moses, after he had finished writing out the whole law (ςַ ?γΞϊֻּ ?ξָּ ?ν), said to the levites: “Take ΰֵ ?ϊρֵ ?τֶ ?ψδַ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?δδַ ?ζֶּ ?δ, and lay it by the side of the ark of the covenant.” In 2 Kings 23:2-3; 2 Kings 23:21; 2 Chronicles 34:30-31, we find instead ρֵ ?τֶ ?ψδַ ?αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, but this expression also designates the books of Moses as a whole. It is the same as λָּ ?μϊּ ?εֹ ?ψַ ?ϊξωֶׁ ?δ, 2 Kings 23:25. This expression is never used of a portion, or of a single one, of the books of Moses, so that it proves that the “book” which was found could not be, as has often been supposed, the book of Deuteronomy. That book was certainly contained in it, for it was the “threats” contained in that book (Deuteronomy 28) which made such a deep impression on the king (2 Kings 22:11), and which were affirmed by the prophetess (2 Kings 22:16). It, however, presupposes the other books, and never formed a separate book by itself. Josiah certainly could not renew the covenant on the basis of one book only, but only on the basis of the whole book of the law (2 Kings 23:1-3). The opinion that this book was Deuteronomy alone has, therefore, been almost universally abandoned, and Bertheau justly observes of this opinion (Zur Gesch. Isr. s. 375): It “lacks all foundation, and only rests upon favorite assumptions, which cannot stand before a critical science which examines more carefully.” It is now commonly assumed hat “the law-book was a document which formed he basis of Deuteronomy at the final redaction” Hitzig on Jerem. xi. s. 90), or that it was a “collection of the commands and ordinances of Moses which has been since incorporated in the Pentateuch, especially in Deuteronomy” (Thenius on the place), or that it was “a collection of the laws of Moses; in fact, that formally arranged collection of them which is contained in the three middle books of the Pentateuch” (Bertheau on 2 Chronicles 34:14). But there is not the slightest hint of my such “collection” as existing before, or by the side of, the Pentateuch; much less is there any lint that any such collection was designated as “the book of the Law,” or “the book of the Covenant.” It is a pure hypothesis in which refuge has been sought, because, on the one hand, it was impossible to understand by the newly discovered “book” any one of the books of the Pentateuch; while, on the other hand, it was believed that the composition of the Pentateuch must be ascribed to a later date. This is not the place for an investigation into the origin of the Pentateuch. We simply hold firmly to this, on the authority of the text before us, that the newly discovered book was the entire Pentateuch. De Wette, even, declares (Einleit. § 162, a): “The discovery of he book of the law in the temple in the reign of Josiah is the first (?) certain hint which we find of the existence of the Pentateuch as we have it to-day.” [In the above discussion there are two points involved: (a) the general question of the date of the origin of Deuteronomy, and (b) the especial evidence of the text before us on that question. I dismiss the former point with the following remarks. (a) It is a question of great scope, involving the examination of many texts (very few of which are mentioned above), and calling for a comprehensive treatment. Such an undertaking is out of place and impossible here. (b) This question requires freedom, and scholarly independence from dogmatic prepossessions, for its discussion. It requires also thorough and wide knowledge of a variety of subjects. It cannot be settled by any arbitary and dogmatic assertions. (c) The reasons which are adduced for believing in the comparatively late origin of the book of Deuteronomy, if not convincing, are at least such as to demand the candid consideration of honest scholars. (For the summary of the arguments on either side see the Introductory Essays in the Commentary on Genesis, and the articles “Pentateuch” and “Deuteronomy,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.) The other question, as to the bearing of this verse on the question of the date of the origin of Deuteronomy, is in place here, but, in fact, the text bears little or no evidence on that point. The reasons for thinking that Deuteronomy was not written by Moses, but at some time long after his death, are critical and independent of the verse before us. When this opinion had gained ground the question arose, when was it written? then attention was turned to this passage, and it was suspected that this was the time of its publication, if not of its composition. Then the text was tortured to try to make it bear evidence either to confirm or overthrow this suspicion. There is evidence to this point drawn from other sources, but the text before us yields none to either side. (a) In the first place, “the Book of the Law” is a name which may have referred at one time to the Decalogue, at another time to a collection of laws, at another time to a still later revision, and so on until it was applied finally to the Pentateuch in its present form, and so came down to us with that meaning. This is what the “critical school” affirm to have been the fact, and so far as the name, “The Book of the Law” goes, it is not inconsistent with that assertion. The “Revised Statutes” of a State, at any given time, means the volume of law as fixed, up to that time. Ten years later, the same title refers, perhaps, to a very different set of laws. The illustration answers rudely for the development which is supposed to have taken place from the original writings of Moses to the historical, political, religious, and ritual work which now bears his name. We have some indications of the extent of what is called “the Law of Moses,” in the time which seems to have been required for reading it, but they are vague and uncertain. In Joshua 8:32, however, we read that Joshua “wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel.” Probably no one will think that, in this case, it refers to the Pentateuch. Therefore, in the verse before us, “the Book of the Law” refers to whatever was so considered, or passed as such at this period, but what that was is exactly the point in dispute. (b) The word ξφΰ, as was said above, is used for different kinds of finding. It does not, therefore, give us any clue as to whether the thing found was an old thing, whose location had not, for some time, been known, or a thing which had not previously been known to be in existence at all. However, no one believes that nothing had previously existed, or been known to exist, which passed under the name of the “Law of the Lord.” The question in dispute is, whether the thing now so designated was identical with what had previously been so called, or was a revision and extension of the same, containing especially, as a recent addition, the book of Deuteronomy. On that question the word ξφΰ casts no light. (c) Hilkiah uses the definite article. Let us endeavor to realize the state of things, and see what inference flows from this fact. We know that, at this time, certain religious doctrines were known and believed, and certain rites of worship were practised in Judah by those who maintained the worship of Jehovah. We also know (so much, at least, no one disputes) that Moses had given certain revelations of religious truth, and certain religious ordinances to the Israelites, in the name of Jehovah, and had written them down. The only dispute on these points can be as to the degree of knowledge, faith, and worship which existed in Judah, and as to the amount of revelation and law which Moses gave and wrote. It follows that the writings of Moses, either in their original, or in a modified and extended form, served as the authority for the doctrine and worship which still remained in Judah, or else, that this written law had passed from human knowledge, lost in the flood of heathenism which had poured over the nation during the last century, in which case the doctrine and worship which remained would be based on a tradition of the ancient writings as such; and the name “The Law” would refer only to the substance of them, so far as it was remembered. Hilkiah’s announcement throws light on this alternative. If he had said: I have found a book of the Law,—it would have implied that he had found a copy of a generally well known volume. But he says: I have found “the Book of the Law.” He refers to it as something known or heard of before, yet the tone of the announcement and the effect of the discovery show that no other copies of this book could have been known to be in existence, or else that this copy was different from all others. If the latter were the case, the suspicion would be forced upon us, by the reference to “threats” in the book, that what marked this copy, as distinguished from all others, was just the book of Deuteronomy. Many scholars so regard the incident. However, it is strange that, if other copies existed, while this copy contained matter which was missing from them, no hint of this should be found in the context. How was it that no one produced a copy of the “Law,” or challenged the new copy as a forgery? Or, if it passed at once as genuine, because it was not in the “spirit of the age” to be critical about literary authorship, and if it was well known, from easy comparison with existing copies, that this copy gave new and valuable knowledge of the Law, why do we find no hint of this gain? The argument from silence is never conclusive, but in this case it is very strong. It seems rather that Hilkiah refers, by his words, to a book which was unique, so far as his, or the general public knowledge went, and that he meant to announce the discovery of the Book which contained that Law which was known to them by tradition, which formed the basis of their faith and worship, of whose existence, at a former time, in a written codex, they had also heard, but of which they possessed no written copy. The only true inference from this text is, therefore, this, that during the time of apostasy, the Scriptures had been lost to public knowledge, and “the Law” existed only as a tradition and memory. This leaves us face to face with the question: Of what did “this book of the Law” consist,—of our Pentateuch, or of some imperfect form of what we now call the Pentateuch? We must look for the answer to that question elsewhere. We shall not find it in this verse.—W. G. S.] As for the particular copy of the book which was found, the Rabbis and many of the old expositors, Grotius, Piscator, Hess, and others inferred from the words 2 Chronicles 34:14 : “The book of the law of Jehovah αְּ ?ιַ ?ψξωֶׁ ?δ,” that it was “the original manuscript from the hand of Moses,” and Calmet was of the opinion that this supposition could alone account for the great effect which the discovery produced. In Numbers 15:23 we find the same expression, but there it cannot possibly be understood literally of the “hand” of Moses. It is used in the sense in which we often find αְּ ?ιַ ?γ elsewhere (1 Kings 12:15; Jeremiah 37:2), simply to denote the medium through which Clericus’ statement is correct: Satis est, exemplar quoddam Legis antiquum fuisse, idque authenticum. As it was found “in the house of Jehovah,” it was most probably the temple-copy, i.e., the official one which, as the documentary testimony to the covenant, was deposited in the temple, according to Deuteronomy 31:12; Deuteronomy 31:26, and was used for public reading from time to time before the people. Perhaps this copy was distinguished by its external appearance, size, material, beauty of the writing, &., from the ordinary private copies. [The passage in Deuteronomy must then be interpreted as a general injunction always to keep a copy in the tabernacle or temple, an interpretation which a glance will show to be incorrect, and it is assumed that there were private copies in existence. If private copies of “the Book of the Law” were common, or if a single one was known to be in existence, then we cannot understand why the discovery produced such a sensation, unless indeed we suppose that the newly discovered copy contained something which the other copies did not. In that case the reference to the “threats” contained in the book, as one of its prominent characteristics, would awaken the gravest suspicion that what it contained over and above the other copies was just the book of Deuteronomy. There is no reason to believe that private copies existed, and the definite article ρֵ ?τֶ ?ψδַ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?δ bears witness to the contrary, as above stated.—W. G. S.] It is nowhere stated when and how this official copy was thrown aside and lost sight of. According to the tradition of the rabbis, this took place under Ahaz, who, they say, caused all the copies to be burned, but Kimchi justly objected that the reformation under Hezekiah presupposed the existence of the Law-book, and acquaintance with it. The supposition is therefore naturally suggested that under the fanatical idolater Manasseh, who sought to destroy all Jehovah-worship, and who reigned for fifty-five years, some faithful servant of Jehovah, perhaps the high-priest himself, took care to conceal and preserve the sacred Scriptures, and that the book only came to light again at the repairing of the temple under Josiah, after sixty or seventy years of concealment. During this period the priests “followed an imperfect tradition in their execution of the public worship of Jehovah, instead of being guided by the legal prescriptions” (Von Gerlach), and “it may be that the active practice of religious observances (which we must take for granted as existing in a well-ordered State) saved them from feeling the necessity for written rules” (Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 610). The discovery of the authentic Law-book was all the more important on this account, for by means of it the pure and correct worship of Jehovah could now be re-established. The idle question, where the book was found? whether under the roof, or under a heap of stones, or in one of the treasure chambers, may be left to the rabbis to contend over. 2 Kings 22:11. When the king had heard the words of the book of the law, &c. Shaphan did not read to the king the whole book, but he read therein (2 Chronicles 34:18 : αּ ?εֹ). Judging from the impression which the words made upon the king (rending one’s clothes is a sign of the deepest anxiety and terror; see 2 Kings 6:30; 2 Kings 19:1), those passages seem to have been read in which the transgressors of the law are threatened with the hardest punishments; such, for instance, as Deuteronomy 28. “Perhaps the last part of the book-roll was unrolled first” (Richter).—The king now sends a deputation of his highest officers, as Hezekiah had done in similar uncertainty, to inquire of the Lord; not, as Duncker (Gesch. des Alt. I. s. 504) states, “in order to find out whether this really was the law of Moses,” but rather, because the genuineness of the book appears to him to be beyond question, he sends to inquire whether and how the punishments which are threatened may be averted. “He desires to learn whether the measure of sin is already full or whether there is yet hope of grace” (Von Gerlach). Only a prophetical declaration—the word of the Lord—could give him an answer to this question. Ahikam appears afterwards as the friend and protector of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 26:24), and as father of Gedaliah, the governor of the cities of Judah (Jeremiah 40:5). Achbor is called, 2 Chronicles 34:20, Abdon, perhaps only by a mistake of the letter characters. According to Jeremiah 26:22; Jeremiah 36:12, he was the father of Elnathan, who belonged to the most intimate associates of king Zedekiah. Asahiah, who is only mentioned here, is spoken of as “the servant of the king,” that is, as an officer in his immediate service.—Unto Huldah, the prophetess (2 Kings 22:14). The king had commanded the deputation to inquire of the Lord without directing them to go to any particular person. The reason why they sought her is probably hinted at in the remark which is added, and which in itself appears unimportant, that “she lived in Jerusalem.” The two prophets who made their appearance during Josiah’s reign were Jeremiah and Zephaniah. The former came from Anathoth in Benjamin (Jeremiah 1:1). He was probably at this time still in that city. The latter, according to Pseudoepiphanius (De prophet. 19), belonged to the tribe of Simeon and came ἀπὸ ὄρουςΣαραβαθά. The deputation went to Huldah because she was the only one at Jerusalem who had the gift of prophecy. In order to show that she was a person of good position, not only the name and office of her husband are given, but also the name of two of his ancestors. He was keeper of the wardrobe, “either of the royal wardrobe, or of that of the sanctuary; the latter is more probable on comparing 2 Kings 10:22” (Bertheau). “In the second part,” i.e., in the lower city. See Nehemiah 11:9; Zephaniah 1:10. Josephus: ἄλληπόλις. Thenius: “In the second district of the (lower) city, which was afterwards included within the walls.” [He thus identifies it with a small hill which formed the extreme north-western suburb of the city.] 2 Kings 22:15. And she said unto them, &c. She addressed her reply in the first place to the man that sent you (2 Kings 22:15-17), afterwards to the king of Judah which sent you (2 Kings 22:18-20). The first part was addressed not only to the king but to “every one who would hear;” the second part was addressed to the king especially (Keil). This is more simple and natural than Thenius’ notion: “In the first part, Huldah has only the subject matter in mind, while in 2 Kings 22:18, in the quieter (?) flow of her words, she takes notice of the state of mind of the particular person who sent to make the inquiry.”—All the words of the book (2 Kings 22:16), stands in apposition with ψָ ?ςָ ?δ which precedes. In Chronicles we find instead: “All the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah” (2 Chronicles 34:24). δַ ?γְּ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ιν in 2 Kings 22:18 is not to be connected with what follows: “Thy heart was tender on account of these words” (Luther), but it is to be taken as a nominative absolute: as for the words which, &c. The sense of 2 Kings 22:18-19 is: Because thou hast heard me and taken heed to my threats, I will also hear thee and not fulfil these threats upon thee. ψַ ?χ is to be taken here in the sense of timid, Deuteronomy 20:8; Jeremiah 51:46. The threats had awakened terror and dismay in him.—A desolation and a curse, see Jeremiah 44:22. The fact that Josiah was slain in battle (2 Kings 23:29) does not contradict αְּ ?ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν in 2 Kings 22:20. That only means to say that he should die “without surviving the desolation of Jerusalem, as we see from the added promise: thine eyes shall not see, &c.” (Keil). According to 2 Chronicles 35:24-25, Josiah was laid in the sepulchre with high honors, followed by the lamentations of the whole people. 2 Kings 23:1. And the king sent and they gathered unto him, &c. Although the king had received an answer which was favorable only in its bearings on himself, his first care was to bring together the entire people, to make them acquainted with the law-book, to lead them to repent, and so to avert as far as possible the threatened punishment. In 2 Kings 23:2 all the classes of the population are mentioned in order to show how much Josiah had it at heart that the entire people, without distinction of rank or class, should become acquainted with the Law. Among these classes the priests and prophets are mentioned. Keil supposes that Jeremiah and Zephaniah were among these “in order that they might, by their participation, accomplish the renewal of the covenant, and that the prophets might then undertake the task of bringing home to the hearts of the people, by earnest preaching in Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, the obligations of the covenant.” If that had been so, however, the prophets could not have been merely incidentally mentioned, but they would have been especially pointed out as prominent agents in the work. The πְ ?αִ ?ιΰִ ?ιν, who here stand with the priests and form one class with them, are evidently not the prophets in the narrower and more especial sense [i.e., as persons who foretold future events and pronounced the oracles of God], but the word is a general designation of the persons whose duty it was to preach and to explain the Law. The Chronicler (2 Chronicles 34:30) has instead δַ ?μְ ?εִ ?ιִּ ?ν, which is no contradiction or arbitrary alteration, for it was the duty and calling of the house of Levi to preach and to interpret the Law (Deuteronomy 17:18; Deuteronomy 31:9 sq.;2 Chronicles 33:10; 2 Chronicles 17:8-9; 2 Chronicles 35:3); the Chaldee paraphrase therefore interprets παιΰιν here by εְ ?ρָ ?τְ ?ψָ ?ιָּ ?ΰ, γρα̣μματεῖς. [What we understand by “interpretation of the law” did not exist until after the captivity. The levites are represented in Deuteronomy as the guardians and readers of the Law, and in Chronicles we find them charged with its publication, but nowhere are they represented as doing what the “scribes” did at a later time. That is an interpretation of the rabbis which is borrowed from their own time, and is unhistorical as applied to this text. Neither were the prophets divided into two classes, one of which was charged with the office of interpretation. There is no evidence of such a division, or of such a duty of the prophets. Certainly if the duty of interpreting the jaw had been given by Moses to the levites, the whole spirit of the Israelitish constitution forbids us to believe that other persons—prophets—persons of every tribe, could have interfered with hat duty or shared in it. We cannot thus reconcile our text with that of Chronicles.—We may get a correct idea of the incident referred to by observing: (a) that the class of prophets was, at this time, very large. The name παιΰ applies to them all. No distinction is made, and the name is even applied to false prophets, whether with an epithet, marking them as false (Ezekiel 13:2-3; Isaiah 9:14; Jeremiah 6:13, &c.), or without any such epithet (Hosea 4:5; Hosea 9:7-8). The same tame is given to the “prophets” of Baal. The original meaning of the word is speaker or orator, but it is essential to the idea of a παιΰ in the O. T. that he speaks under the influence of divine illumination or inspiration. He may be false, and pretend to an illumination which he has not, or he nay speak in the name of a false god, but, as one who claims and pretends to illumination, he is a παιΰ. (b) There were schools in which persons were trained to this office and work. Originally such persons were few in number, but the book of Jeremiah shows conclusively that, in the time of that prophet, they were numerous, and that many had the name without the spirit. Many were called, but few chosen. (c) The aim of the schools of the prophets was to nourish faith in Jehovah and worship of Him; to cultivate men who preserved the traditions of the Jehovah religion, perpetuated the great doctrines which the prophets continually reiterate, and cultivated insight into divine truth, (d) The schools could do no more than spend their labor on those who offered themselves for the work. The truth of their calling could only appear in their subsequent work. Hence the authority of the prophets was nothing more or less than their divine calling, which manifested itself in their later labors. In fact, it was lot until Isaiah and Jeremiah had been long dead that their labors were ratified and could be estimated. (e) The words or writings of the fifteen or sixteen whose works remain to us comprise, if we may so speak, only the cream of the prophetic utterances of centuries. (f) The prophets never base their teachings on Moses, but teach originally. They do not say: Thus saith Moses. They do not quote the Pentateuch as an authority. They never impress their commands by quoting the “Law of Moses” as the supreme authority of faith and duty. If they did, their works would not be Holy Scripture, but commentaries, or, at most, sermons. On the contrary, they say: Thus saith the Lord. Their work is original and creative; it is not merely in the way of application or reflexion. When they quote the “Law of the Lord” they quote principles and doctrines which were fundamental in the Israelitish constitution. They do not refer to specific ordinances and enactments, but to the spirit and principles of the Jehovah-religion. We have an analogy in the frequent reference in modern sermons to “the will of God.” This refers only generally to the Bible, and includes those things also which are not specifically ordained in the Bible, but which a Christian conscience recognizes as God’s will. (g) It is, therefore, an error to attempt to enhance the character and authority of the great prophets by supposing that, during their life-time, they were separated from others of their class. (h) It is also an error to suppose that they held any insubordinate or independent place in the body politic. We admire these men who rebuked kings, and dictated public policy in great crises, but we do them injustice if we believe that, on ordinary occasions, and in ordinary duties, they emancipated themselves from the obligations of subjects of the kingdom.—In the present case the text shows us the place of the prophets. They ranked with the priests as religious persons. If Jeremiah was in Jerusalem we may be sure that he took his place, simply and without ostentation, among his comrades in station and calling. We do not need to invent any special reason for the presence of the prophets. They were there simply as a class amongst the multitude assembled. (i) It is also an error to reconcile the text of Kings with that of Chronicles by identifying the levites, in function, with the prophets, or any class of the prophets. In the time of the chronicler the prophets had ceased to exist, certainly as a class. He was accustomed to see levites in this place by the side of the priests on such occasions, and that is the simple reason why he mentions them as occupying that place in the present instance.—W. G. S.] Both small and great. This does not mean both the children and the grown-up persons, but, both the lower classes and the people of distinction. No doubt the king left to the priests or prophets the duty of reading the book, but himself took the oath of fidelity to the covenant from the people. He therefore took his place upon the platform (see notes on 2 Kings 11:14). 2 Kings 23:4. And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, &c. As in 2 Kings 11:17-18, the conclusion of the covenant was followed by the extirpation of idolatry, first by the removal of the utensils of this cultus (ver 4), then by the execution of the priests of it (ver 5), then by the destruction and desecration of the places in which it was practised (2 Kings 23:6 sq.). λֹּ ?δֲ ?πֵ ?ιδַ ?ξִּ ?ωְׁ ?πֶ ?δ are not, as the rabbis say, the deputies of the high-priest, but, in contrast with him, the younger and subordinate priests. See 1 Chronicles 15:18; 2 Chronicles 31:12; 1 Samuel 8:2. The keepers of the door are the levites whose duty it was to guard the temple (2 Kings 22:4; 1 Chronicles 23:5). On Baal and Aschera and upon the host of heaven, see notes on 2 Kings 21:3 [also notes on 2 Kings 16:3; 2 Kings 17:17]. This burning took place in obedience to Deuteronomy 7:25; Deuteronomy 12:3. It was accomplished outside of Jerusalem, because the things were unclean, on the fields of the Kidron, north-east of the city, where the Kidron valley is broader than between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. Asa had caused an idol to be burned there (1 Kings 15:13), and Hezekiah caused all the impure things which were found in the temple to be carried thither (2 Chronicles 29:16). Not even the ashes, however, might remain there. They were carried to Bethel, certainly for no other reason than because that had been the chief place of origin for all idolatrous and illegitimate worship ever since the time of Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:33). That which had proceeded from thence Josiah sent back thither—in ashes. Thenius’ conjecture: “αֵּ ?ιϊΞΰַ ?μ, he carried the ashes into the house of nothingness, i.e., he scattered them on all the winds,” is, to say the least, unnecessary. 2 Kings 23:5. And he caused to desist the idolatrous priests, &c.: Not, he caused to perish, put to death (Sept. κατέκαυσε; Vulg. delevit), but, he caused to cease, or set aside. The word αְּ ?ξָ ?ψִ ?ιν occurs besides only in Hosea 10:5 and Zephaniah 1:4. The etymology of the word is uncertain. The rabbis derive it from λξψ, nigredo, because they wore black garments, but we have no instance of priests who wore black garments, and this etymology is certainly false. According to Gesenius it comes from λξψ, to execute or accomplish, and means the celebrant (of the sacred offices), ἔρδων, sacrificed. [This is Keil’s opinion, not Gesenius’. The latter, in the Thesaurus s. v. follows the etymology above ascribed to the rabbis. He says that it means “blackness, sadness, and so, concretely, one who walks in black garments, i.e., a grieving, sad, ascetic, priest.” As it is only used of the priests of false worship, it would be very remarkable that the name applied to them should mean, strictly, ascetics.—W. G. S.] Fόrst connects it with the Arabic chamar = coluit deum, hence, one who serves, a servant. It certainly refers to a kind of priests, not necessarily of idols, for in Hosea 10:5 the priests of Jeroboam’s Jehovah-calf-worship are so called, and here they are distinguished from those who offered incense to Baal. Probably it refers to those who without actually being priests, exercised sacerdotal functions either in the service of the calves or of false divinities. Baal “serves as a designation of the entire cultus which was covered by his name, as if it were said: Baal, i.e., the sun, &.” (Thenius). The ξַ ?ζָּ ?μεֹ ?ϊ, from ξַ ?ζָּ ?μ, lodging, dwelling, station, are the twelve divisions of the Zodiac marked by the figures and names of animals; the twelve constellations of the Zodiac, which are called in Job 38:22 ξַ ?ζָּ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ (see Gesen. Thes. II. 869). δָ ?ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψָ ?δ (2 Kings 23:6), means not one but many Astarte-statues which Manasseh had set up in the temple (2 Kings 21:7). If he removed them after his return from Babylon (2 Chronicles 33:15), they were reinstated by Amon.—On the graves of the common people. The chronicler says: “On the graves of those who had sacrificed to them” (the false gods). Evidently this is a gloss added by the chronicler himself. Persons of the common folk [as the text reads literally] are not worshippers of false gods, but common people. These did not have hereditary sepulchres hewn out of the rock (Winer, R.-W.-B. I. 444), as the rich and noble had. They were buried in the open fields where the corpses were more likely to be dug up by wild animals. The present burying-place of the Jews is in the Kidron valley. It is evident from Jeremiah 26:23 that this burial was not disgraceful, although it was less honorable than that in a rock-hewn sepulchre. If this had been the burying-place for idol-worshippers, it would have been the usual burying-place in the time of Manasseh, whereas at that time it was rather the faithful servants of Jehovah who were dishonorably buried. Josiah’s reason for throwing the ashes on these graves was, therefore, not “to desecrate them as the graves of idolaters” (Keil), but in order still further to dishonor the ashes of the destroyed idols.—On δַ ?χְּ ?ψֵ ?ωִׁ ?ιν (2 Kings 23:7) see note on 1 Kings 14:24. Only male prostitutes, not female (Thenius) can be understood. They had their dwellings (tents or cabins) near the temple, perhaps in the outer court. In these also dwelt the women who wove αָּ ?ϊִּ ?ιν for the Ashera. Whether these were “tents,” and, if so, of what kind they were (hardly, as Ewald thinks, “garments” [he alters the text and reads αְּ ?βָ ?γִ ?ιν Gesch. III. 718]) is not clear. 2 Kings 17:30 does not throw any light on it. Movers (Ph�n. I. s. 686) says: “The castrated male prostitute (χָ ?γֵ ?ωׁ) imagines or pretends that he is a woman: negant se viros esse * mulieres se volunt credi. Firmic. He lives in association with women, and the latter, in their turn, have a peculiar inclination towards him.” 2 Kings 23:8. And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah. 2 Kings 23:8-9 belong together. The true levitical priests, who exercised their functions on the high places instead of in the temple, he caused to come to Jerusalem in order to make them desist from this. He caused the high-places to be made unfit for use by desecrating them. However, these priests, since they had forfeited their priestly dignity, were not allowed to perform priestly offices in the temple. They were employed simply as levites. They were allowed to eat unleavened, or sacrificial, bread, but not in company with the other priests (cf. Ezekiel 44:10-14). They were, therefore, placed in the same category with those sons of Aaron who were prevented by some physical defect from undertaking the hereditary functions of their family (Leviticus 21:21). It is not stated in the text that they continued to be participes emolumentorum sacerdotalium (Clericus).—From Geba to Beer sheba, that is, throughout the entire kingdom. Geba is the Gibea in the territory of Benjamin, near Ramah, the home of Saul. See notes on 1 Kings 15:22, and Knobel on Isaiah 10:29. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ THIRD SECTION The Monarchy From The Reign Of Jehoahaz To That Of Zedekiah (2 Kings 23:31 to 2 Kings 25:30)A.—The Reigns of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah2 Kings 23:31 to 2 Kings 25:731 Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. 32And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that his fathers had done. 33And Pharaohnechoh put him in bands [took him captive] at Riblah in the land of Hamath, that he might not reign in Jerusalem; and put the land to [laid upon the land] a tribute of a hundred talents of silver, and a talent of gold. 34And Pharaohnechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there: 35And Jehoiakim gave the silver and the gold to Pharaoh; but he taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every [each] one according to his taxation [assessment], to give it unto Pharaohnechoh. 36Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Zebudah, the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah. 37And he did that which was evil in the sight of 2 Kings 24:1 the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done. In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him. 2And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy [devastate] it, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by 3his servants the prophets. Surely [Only] at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to [in] all that he did; 4And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the Lord would not pardon. 5Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they 6not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. 7And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt. 8Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 9And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that his father had done. 10At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. 11And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. 12And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his 13[the king of Babylon’s] reign. And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said. 14And he carried away [captive] all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valor, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. 15And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. 16And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon. 17And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father’s brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah. 18Zedekiah was twenty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. 19And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that Jehoiakim had done. 20For through the anger of the Lord it came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, until he had cast them out from his presence [.] that [omit that; insert And] Zedekiah rebelled 2 Kings 25:1 against the king of Babylon. And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched 2against it; and they built forts [siege-works] against it round about. And the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of king Zedekiah. 3And on the ninth day of the fourth [omit fourth] month the famine prevailed in the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land. 4And the city was broken up [a breach was made in the city], and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls, which is by the king’s garden (now the Chaldees were against the city round about [had invested the city]:) and the king went the way toward the plain. 5And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho: and all his army were scattered from him. 6So they took the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah; and they gave judgment upon him. 7And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and [he] put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and [they] bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon. AND 2 Kings 23:31. Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old. This son of Josiah is called by Jeremiah (22:11) Shallum (ωַׁ ?μֻּ ?ν), which name, according to Hengstenberg, Keil, and Schlier, is significant, and means: “He who shall be recompensed,” referring to his fate (2 Kings 23:33-34). But why should this king be expressly so named when others, as, for instance, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, met with a similar fate (chaps. 24:15; 25:7)? According to Junius, Hitzig, and Thenius, Jeremiah gave him the name Shallum, with reference to his reign of three months (2 Kings 15:13), in the same manner as Jezebel named Jehu “Zimri, murdered of his master” (2 Kings 9:31). But this also is forced and invented. In 1 Chronicles 3:15, in the enumeration of the sons of Josiah, he is called Shallum instead of Jehoahaz, but we may be certain that the chronicler did not put in a “symbolical” name, which the prophet only once used with particular significance and emphasis, by the side of three other actual names, and in a dry genealogical list. Shallum was the name which this king actually bore before his accession to the throne. When he became king he received another name, just as Eliakim and Mattaniah did (2 Kings 23:34; 2 Kings 24:17). Shallum took the name Jehoahaz, i.e., He-whom-Jehovah-sustains. The people made him king in place of his elder brother, and Shallum seemed a name of evil omen, inasmuch as the former king Shallum [of Israel] only reigned for one month. According to Josephus, Jehoahaz reigned three months “and ten days.” 2 Kings 23:33. And Pharaoh-necho took him captive at Riblah in the land of Hamath. εַ ?ιַּ ?ΰַ ?ρְ ?ψְ ?δεּ is generally translated: he bound him, or put him in bands, but ΰρψ has also “the primary meaning, to make captive, without the notion of fettering, Genesis 42:16” (Gesenius), and, taking into consideration 2 Kings 17:4, this more general signification is here to be preferred.—The city of Riblah (now the village Ribleh) belonged to the district of the Syrian city Hamath at the foot of Mt. Hermon (Antilebanon), on the river Orontes, that is, therefore, on the northernmost boundary of Palestine towards Damascus (1 Kings 8:65; 2 Kings 14:25; Amos 6:14). Riblah lay in a large and fruitful plain on the high-way which led, by way of the Euphrates, from Palestine to Babylon. At a later time Nebuchadnezzar also established his headquarters there (2 Kings 25:6; 2 Kings 25:20-21. See Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 323). It can hardly be the same Riblah which is mentioned in Numbers 34:11 (see Keil on that passage). If Necho had already advanced, since the battle of Megiddo in which Josiah fell (2 Kings 23:29), on his way to the Euphrates, as far as Riblah, it cannot be that, during the three months that Jehoahaz reigned, he had also made a detour to Jerusalem and besieged and taken that city. Shalmaneser spent three years in besieging and taking Samaria, which was not so strongly fortified (2 Kings 17:5). Moreover, Necho did not probably “quit the main army without great necessity while it was advancing against a powerful enemy” (Winer). The text says distinctly that he took Jehoahaz prisoner in Riblah and not in Jerusalem, and it gives no support to Keil’s statement, that, while the main army advanced slowly towards Riblah, “he sent a detachment to Jerusalem to take that city and dethrone the king.” In that case he must have captured the king in Jerusalem and not in Riblah. The attempt has been made to sustain this notion that Necho took Jerusalem by a statement of Herodotus (II. 159): μετάτήνμάχην (at Megiddo) ΚάδυτινπόλιντῆςΣυρίηςἐοῦσανμεγάληνεἶλε. But it is now universally admitted that Κάδυτις cannot mean Jerusalem, but rather that it was some sea-port (cf. Herod. III. 5), although this does not necessarily imply that it was Gaza, as Hitzig and Starke affirm. [It is Kadesh, a city of Syria, on the Orontes, near to Emessa, the ruins of which have lately been discovered.—Lenormant.] We are not told how Jehoahaz came to Riblah, but it certainly was not, as the old expositors supposed, with a large army in the intention of repeating his father’s attempt to arrest Necho’s advance, for the army of Judah had perished in the battle of Megiddo. According to Josephus, who says nothing of any capture of Jerusalem by Necho, the latter summoned Jehoahaz to come to his camp (μεταπέμπεταιπρὸςαὐτὸν), and took him captive when he came. This is more probable than that he came of his own accord, “perhaps to seek from the victor the ratification of his election to the throne” (Thenius). However that may be, he was unexpectedly made a captive at Riblah. We may infer, as Ewald does, from Ezekiel 19:4, where he is likened to a young lion whom “the nations” had taken “in their pit” (certainly not, therefore, at Jerusalem), that he was “treacherously” bound and carried away captive to Egypt. [See the Supplem. Note below, at the end of this section.]—The words αִּ ?ξְּ ?μֹ ?κְ αִּ ?ιψεּ ?ωָׁ ?μָ ?νִ are translated by Keil: “When he had become king in Jerusalem.” That, however, had been said just before in 2 Kings 23:31, and is understood from the connection as a matter of course, so that it would be a mere idle remark. Neither can the translation: “Because he had exalted himself to be king in Jerusalem” (Dereser), or, dum regnaret (Vatablus) be sustained. We must, therefore, adopt the keri ξִ ?ξְּ ?μֹ ?κְ, as is done by the Chaldee version, the Sept. (τοῦ μὴ βασιλεύεινἐν ’Ιερουσαλήμ), and the Vulg. (ne regnaret in Jerusalem). This is further confirmed by the parallel passage (2 Chronicles 36:3) in which the verse is abbreviated: “And the king of Egypt put him down (εַ ?ιְ ?ρִ ?ιψֵ ?δεּ) [i.e., removed him, set him aside] at Jerusalem.” (The Sept. have in that place ἔδησεν which represents the Hebrew of Kings, and they have here μετέστησεν which represents the Hebrew of Chronicles.) In 3 Esra 1:3 also we find: καὶ ἀπέστησεναὐτὸνβασιλεὺςΑἰγύπτουτοῦ μὴ βασιλεύεινἐν ’Ιερουσαλήμ. It is not necessary to suppose, with Ewald, that ξִ ?ξְּ ?μֹ ?κְ was “dropped out” from 2 Chronicles 36:3; still less, with Thenius, to read in this place, εַ ?ιְ ?ρִ ?ιψֵ ?ηεּ instead of εַ ?ιַּ ?ΰַ ?ρְ ?ψֵ ?δεּ.—And laid upon the land a tribute. The relative amount of the silver and the gold is remarkable, one hundred talents of silver to one of gold, but, as the same figures are given in 2 Chronicles 36:3 and in 3 Esra 1:36, we are not justified in changing them, as Thenius does, appealing to 2 Kings 18:14, and adopting the statement of the Sept. that there were ten talents of gold instead of one. It may be that Necho wanted silver, which was rarer in the Orient, or that he did not wish to alienate the country too much from himself by pitiless severity. The entire tribute amounted, according to Thenius, to 230,000 thaler [$165,600]; according to Keil the gold amounted to 25,000 thaler [$18,000], and the silver to 250,000 thaler [$180,000]. 2 Kings 23:34. And Pharaoh-necho made Eliakim, son of Josiah, king, &c. After the victory at Megiddo and the death of Josiah, Necho regarded himself as master of the country, and therefore he would not recognize as king Jehoahaz, who had been elevated to the throne by the people without his (Necho’s) consent. Possibly also, as has often been assumed, either the elder brother Eliakim, who had been passed over, had appealed to Necho, or the Egyptian party had, by its intrigues, induced Necho, after setting aside Jehoahaz, to appoint the elder brother, and not a foreigner, for instance one of his own generals. He changed his name, as was the customary sign of subjection and vassalage (2 Kings 24:17; Daniel 1:7). It appears that the choice of a name was left to Eliakim, who only changed—ΰֶ ?μ to—ιְ ?δεֹ in the composition of his former name so that its signification: God (Jehovah) will-establish, remained the same. Whether he did this “in intentional contradiction to the humiliation of the royal dynasty of David, which Jeremiah and the other prophets had threatened” (Keil), is very doubtful. Menzel very mistakenly infers that the name Jehoiakim pleased Necho better “on account of the connection with the Egyptian moon-God.”—And took Jehoahaz away, μχη does not mean here: “He had taken prisoner,” any more than it does in 2 Kings 23:30. This much has already been stated in 2 Kings 23:33. It only means that he did not leave him in Riblah where he had taken him captive, but took him away from there (Genesis 2:15). The Sept. and the Vulg. read, instead of εַ ?ιּ ?αֵ ?ΰ ,εַ ?ιָּ ?αֹ ?ΰ; et duxit, and in Chronicles we find εַ ?ιְ ?αִ ?ιΰֵ ?δεּ, but εַ ?ιָּ ?αֹ ?ΰ implies that Jehoahaz came to Egypt before Necho returned thither.—”In 2 Kings 23:35 the details in regard to the payment of the tribute imposed by Necho are given before the history of the reign of Jehoiakim is entered upon, because the payment of that tribute was one of the conditions on which he was elevated to the throne” (Keil). ΰַ ?κְ = nevertheless, but in order to obtain the sum; he did not pay it out of his own means. He demanded contributions “from each one, even from the humblest inhabitant” (Ewald). This place shows that by “the people of the land” we have not to understand, as Thenius does, the “national militia,” or the “male population fit for war.” 2 Kings 23:36. Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old. He was therefore two years older than Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:31), and must have been begotten by Josiah in the fourteenth year of the latter’s age. His mother was not the same person as the mother of Jehoahaz. Rumah, her native place, is probably identical with Arumah in the neighborhood of Shechem (Judges 9:41).— 2 Kings 24:1. In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up. On the name πְ ?αֻ ?λַ ?γְ ?πֶ ?ΰφַּ ?ψ (Jeremiah generally, and Ezekiel always, writes it πְ ?αεּ ?λַ ?γְ ?ψֶ ?ΰφַּ ?ψ), its different forms, and its significance, see Gesenius, Thesaurus, II. p. 840, and Niebuhr, Gesch. Assyr. s. 41. [The name is Nabu-kudurri-uzur, and means either Nebo-protects-the-youth (Oppert), or, Nebo-is-the-protector-of-landmarks (Sir H. Rawlinson)—Rawlinson, Five Great Mon. III. 80. He was the son of Nabopolassar, and he appears here for the first time in this history. The question as to the time in Jehoiakim’s reign at which he made this expedition can be answered from other data with tolerable certainty. According to Jeremiah 25:1, the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, and according to Jeremiah 46:2 this fourth year of Jehoiakim was the year in which Nebuchadnezzar inflicted a decisive defeat upon Necho near Carchemish, a large well-fortified city at the junction of the Chaboras and the Euphrates (Winer. R.-W.-B. I. s. 211 sq.). Moreover, according to Jeremiah 36:1, Jeremiah commissioned Baruch, in this fourth year of Jehoiakim, to write down his discourses in a book which was read in public on a great fast day which was held in the ninth month, that is, towards the end of the fifth year of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 24:9). This fast-day was not ordained on account of a misfortune which had already been experienced. “in order, by humiliation and submission, to turn aside the wrath of God, and to implore the divine pity” (Keil), but “evidently, because Jehoiakim was alarmed at the approach of the Chaldeans, and saw in it danger of a calamity to the country which might perhaps yet be averted” (Ewald); for Jehoiakim, when he heard that the book had been read, commanded it to be brought, and then cast it into the fire, because there was written in it: “The king of Babylon will certainly come and destroy this land” (22 Kings 24:29, cf. also Jeremiah 24:3). At the time of this fastday, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar had not yet come. His coming was something to be looked forward to even in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim. It follows that his expedition took place, at the very earliest, at the end of the fifth, or at the beginning of the sixth, year of Jehoiakim’s reign. How far southward he penetrated, whether as far as Egypt, as some suppose, is uncertain. The supposition that he at this time captured the strongly fortified city of Jerusalem (Keil), and even took captive a part of the inhabitants of the city or country, as he did at a later time under Jehoiachin, is not sustained by anything in the Book of Kings or in Jeremiah. It is inconceivable that he should have done so and yet no mention of it be found in Scripture. This much only is certain: that Jehoiakim then “became subject to him for three years,” that is, until the eigth or ninth year of his reign (Jeremiah 24:1), which may well have come to pass without the capture of Jerusalem, or the deportation of its inhabitants, although we do not know the manner in which it did come about. We have, therefore, to present to our minds the course of events as follows: After Necho had defeated Josiah at Megiddo and taken Jehoahaz captive at Riblah, and had made Jehoiakim king, he pushed on northeasterly towards the Euphrates, but he was met and so severely defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish that he was obliged to give up his plan of conquering Assyria and retreat to Egypt. The victor, Nebuchadnezzar, then advanced through the territory east of Jordan, where he had little opposition to encounter (Knobel, Prophet. II. s. 227), and made the king of Judah, who had for five years been a vassal of the king of Egypt, subject to himself. After three years, however, Jehoiakim revolted, but for the remaining two or three years of his reign he was hard pressed by bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites and Ammonites, who were probably incited to invasion by Nebuchadnezzar, for he was too much occupied in other directions, in consequence of the death of his father, to march against Judah in person. When he found opportunity he appeared in person with an army “to punish the revolt, and he took vengeance for it upon the son [Jehoiachin] who had recently succeeded Jehoiakim” (Thenius), especially because Jehoiachin had not at his accession, immediately submitted to the Babylonian authority. Against this natural and simple conception of the course of events two biblical texts may be cited. 2 Chronicles 36:6 reads: “Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also carried [some] of the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon.” It is not here asserted that Jehoiakim was actually brought as a captive to Babylon, and this can, in fact, hardly have been the fact, for he was king in Jerusalem not eight or nine but eleven years (2 Kings 23:36; 2 Chronicles 36:5). It would be necessary, therefore, to assume that he was set at liberty again and came back to Jerusalem as king, of which we have no hint anywhere, and which is highly improbable. Certainly he did not die in Babylon (2 Kings 24:6; cf. Jeremiah 22:17-19). The Sept. filled out the meagre story of Jehoiakim in Chronicles from this account, but omitted entirely the words: “And bound him in fetters,” &c., evidently because they considered them incorrect. In view of the remarkable brevity and superficiality with which the chronicler treats the history of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, it appears, as Hitzig supposes (note on Daniel 1:2), that he confused the two, for, according to our more detailed and more accurate account, the incidents which he mentions as having occurred to Jehoiakim really happened to Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:13-15). Josephus (Antiq. x. 6, 1) seems to have made the same mistake, for he confuses the history of the two kings. He says that Jehoiakim, on the promise that no harm should happen to him, admitted Nebuchadnezzar into the city, but that the Babylonian broke his word and put to death the king and the principal men threw the body of the king under the wall, and left it unburied, took about 3,000 Jews, among whom was Ezekiel, away captive to Babylon, and placed Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachin, on the throne. Then that, fearing lest Jehoiachin might, out of revenge for his father’s murder, lead the city to revolt, he sent an army to Jerusalem, but gave an oath to Jehoiachin that, in case the city should be taken, no harm should befall him. That then the king of Judah surrendered, in order to spare the city, but was nevertheless taken away into captivity with 10,000 other captives. It appears that Josephus was not able to harmonize the account in Chronicles with the account here, and so he mixed them both up together, not writing history but inventing it.— The other text which may be cited against the construction of the history above given is Daniel 1:1 : “In the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it (εַ ?ιַּ ?φַ ?ψ [pressed it hard] see Isaiah 21:2; Judges 9:31; Esther 8:11), and the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God,” &c. It is true that this passage does not say that the city was besieged and taken, and that then the king was bound and taken away to Babylon. When the Chaldeans had driven the Egyptians out of Palestine, Jehoiakim found himself in great distress, and, in order not to lose his crown and his kingdom, he surrendered to the king of Babylon, gave him some of the temple ornaments and utensils, and, probably enough, also gave him certain hostages, among whom was Daniel. But the statement that this took place in the third year of Jehoiakim does not agree with the statements above quoted from Jeremiah. No one has yet succeeded in removing the discrepancy, although very many attempts have been made (see a critical analysis of these attempts by Rφsch in Herzog’s Real-Encyc. XVIII. s. 464). The latest of these attempts, that of Keil, which insists that we “must regard the third year of Jehoiakim, in Daniel 1:1, as the terminus a quo of Nebuchadnezzar’s coming, i.e., must understand that statement to mean that Nebuchadnezzar began the expedition against Judah in that year; that Necho was defeated at Carchemish in the beginning of Jehoiakim’s fourth year, and that, in consequence of this victory, Jerusalem was taken and Jehoiakim was made tributary in the same year,” is unsatisfactory especially in view of Jer 36:9. There is scarcely any escape remaining except to assume that Daniel reckoned from some other point of time which we cannot now specify. It is not admissible to give his one statement the preference over the numerous chronological statements of Jeremiah, since these are consistent with one another, and with the historical connection, and are, moreover, as will be shown below in the review of the chronology of this period, in perfect harmony with all the other chronological data both in Jeremiah and in the Book of Kings, while the statement in Daniel, if it is taken as fixed and correct, introduces confusion. [See the Supplement. Note below.] 2 Kings 24:2. And the Lord sent against him bands, &c. It is not stated what impelled Jehoiakim after three years to try to throw off the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar. Perhaps his courage rose again when Nebuchadnezzar had withdrawn and was fully occupied in other parts of his immense kingdom. Perhaps also he hoped for aid from Egypt. Before Nebuchadnezzar himself could come, “bands” (βְּ ?γεּ ?γִ ?ιν in distinction from ηַ ?ιִ ?μ, 2 Kings 25:1, not an organized army) devasted the country, though they could not take the capital. “All the nationalities here mentioned had no doubt been obliged to recognize Nebuchadnezzar’s supremacy, and they gratified their own hate against Judah at the same time that they served his purposes” (Thenius). The εֹ in μְ ?δֵ ?ΰַּ ?αִ ?ιγεֹ does not refer to Jehoiakim (Luther: dass sie ihn umbrδchten [that they might put him to death]), but to “Judah” which immediately precedes. This is evident from 2 Kings 24:3. On 2 Kings 24:2-4 Starke observes: “It is expressly said: ‘The Lord sent,’ and again: ‘According to the word of the Lord,’ and in 2 Kings 24:3 again: ‘Surely at the commandment of the Lord came this’ (i.e., it came to pass only because the Lord had commanded it), and again in 2 Kings 24:4 : ‘The Lord would not pardon,’ in order that in all this the hand of God might appear and be recognized, and that men might not think that these judgments came upon Judah by accident, or merely on account of the physical strength of the Babylonians.” The author means to say that the judgments which had long been threatened and predicted by the prophets (Isaiah, Micah, Huldah, Habakkuk, Jeremiah) now began. The invasion of all these bands on every side was the presage of the downfall of the kingdom, for from this time on came one misfortune after the other, and the kingdom and nation moved on steadily towards their downfall. 2 Kings 24:3. Only at the commandment of the Lord, i.e., it came only for the reason that God had so willed it. Instead of ςַ ?μΞτִּ ?ι Ewald and Thenius desire to read ςַ ?μΞΰַ ?σ as in 2 Kings 24:20, i.e., because of the wrath of God. The Sept. have: πλὴνθυμὸςκυρίουἦνἐπὶ τὸν ’Ιούδαν; the Vulg. has: per verbum. The change in the text is not necessary. For the sins of Manasseh, see notes on chap. 21. The sin of Manasseh was far greater and heavier than that of Jeroboam. Judah gave itself up to this sin so entirely that not only were all the warnings and exhortations of the prophets ineffectual, but also the stern measures of Josiah could not effect anything in opposition; on the contrary, as we see from the words of Jeremiah, after his death this sin once more permeated the national life. The sins of Manasseh were not, therefore, avenged upon the people, but, because they persisted in them, they fell under the judgments of God. [That is, the nation was not punished under Jehoiakim for sins which Manasseh and his contemporaries had committed. The “sins of Manasseh” had become a designation for a certain class of offences, and a particular form of public and social depravity, which was introduced by Manasseh, but of which generation after generation continued to be guilty.—W. G. S.] Keil is mistaken when he thus states the connection between 2 Kings 24:1 and 2 Kings 24:2, and the following verses: “After God had given the nation into subjection to the Babylonian supremacy, as a punishment for its sins, every revolt against that power was a revolt against Him.”—In 2 Kings 24:5 we find the last reference to the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah. The history of Jehoiakim therefore seems to have formed the conclusion to this book. 2 Kings 24:6. So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers. The details which are given elsewhere in mentioning the death of a king, as to his burial and the place of his sepulture, are here wanting, certainly not through accident or error. Jeremiah says of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah 22:19 : “He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem,” and, Jeremiah 36:30 “He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat and in the night to the frost.” As the statement that he “slept with his fathers” means neither more nor less than that he came to death, this text does not exclude or deny the fulfilment of the prophecy; nor can the statement which is interpolated in the Sept.: καὶ ἐκοιμήθη ’Ιωακεὶμμετὰ τῶνπατέρωνἑαυτοῦ, καὶ ἐτάφηἐνγανοζὰνμετὰ τῶνπατέρωνἑαυτοῦ, for which there are no corresponding words in the Hebrew, avail, as Thenius believes, to prove the non-fulfilment of the prophecy. On the contrary, Ewald infers from the prophecy, which, however, he says “was written, in its present form, after the event,” that the following is the circumstantial story of Jehoiakim’s death: “Probably he had complied with a treacherous invitation of the enemy to visit his camp, for the purpose of making a treaty, and as soon as he came out he was taken prisoner in the very sight of his own capital. But as he resisted with rage and violence, he was borne away by force, and shamefully put to death. Even an honorable burial, for which his family no doubt entreated, was harshly refused.” This representation of the incident goes beyond the prophecy even, and builds history upon it. Winer supposes that Jehoiakim’s body was thrown out after, and in consequence of, the capture of the city in the reign of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:10), “on which occasion either the enemy, or perhaps the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves, showed their rage against the hated king,” but, according to Jeremiah, he met with no burial at all. We therefore limit ourselves to the assumption, which is also made by Keil, “that he perished in a battle with some one of the irregular marauding bands mentioned above, and was not buried.” 2 Kings 24:7. And the king of Egypt came not again any more, &c. This remark is here inserted in order to show under what circumstances Jehoiachin succeeded his father (2 Kings 24:6), and how it came that he only reigned for so short a time (2 Kings 24:8). Necho had retired finally from Asia after such losses that he could not venture again to meet his victorious enemy, therefore Judah could expect no more support from him. Much less could it attempt alone to resist the conqueror from whom it had revolted. The river of Egypt is not the Nile, but the stream now known as Arish, which forms the southern boundary of Palestine (1 Kings 8:65; Isaiah 27:12). 2 Kings 24:8. Jehoiachin was eighteen years old, &c. The form of the name ιְ ?δεֹ ?ιָ ?λִ ?ιο which occurs here and in Chronicles (II. 36:8, 9), is the full and original form. The signification is “He-whom-Jehovah-confirms.” In Ezekiel 1:2 we find ιεֹ ?ιָ ?λִ ?ιο; in Jeremiah 27:20; Jeremiah 28:4 : ιְ ?λָ ?πְ ?ιָ ?δεּ; and in Jeremiah 22:24; Jeremiah 22:28 : αָּ ?πְ ?ιָ ?δεּ, which last is probably a popular abbreviation of the name. Instead of eighteen years the chronicler gives eight years, evidently through an omission of ι = 10. The grounds adduced by Hitzig (note on Jeremiah 22:28) in favor of eight are swept away by ver 15 of this chapter, where the king’s “wives” are mentioned. There is no reason to cast suspicion upon the more accurate statement of the chronicler: “three months and ten days,” as Thenius does. Elnathan belonged to the ωָׁ ?ψִ ?ιν at the court of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah 26:22; Jeremiah 36:12; Jeremiah 36:25. 2 Kings 24:10. At that time, &c. The chronicler says instead: “When the year was expired” [more correctly it would read: “At the turning-point of the year,” i.e., either the spring equinox, or the beginning of the Jewish year, both of which came at nearly the same time; the time at which military movements were commenced], i.e., in the spring, not “late in the summer or in the autumn” (Thenius). Nebuchadnezzar sent out his generals (ςֲ ?αָ ?γִ ?ιν), in the first place, with the army to besiege the city. Afterwards he came himself, in order to be present at the capture (see notes on 2 Kings 24:2).—And Jehoiachin, king of Judah, went out, &c., 2 Kings 24:12. ιָ ?φָ ?ΰ, as in 2 Kings 18:31, is the ordinary expression for besieged who go out to surrender to the besiegers (1 Samuel 11:3; Jeremiah 21:9; Jeremiah 38:17). Jehoiachin perceived that the city would not be able to hold out very long, and therefore determined to surrender, in the hope of meeting with grace from Nebuchadnezzar, and of being allowed to keep his kingdom, though as a vassal. He therefore went out with his mother as the Gebirah (1 Kings 15:13), and with his ministers and officers, but his hopes were all disappointed. Nebuchadnezzar distrusted him, not without reason, and he desired to punish the father in the son. εַ ?ιִּ ?χַּ ?η, he seized him, not “he received him graciously” (Luther and the Calw. Bib.), for, if the latter were the meaning, he would have restored him as a vassal, but he dethroned him and took him into exile. The eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, who became king in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 25:1), fell in the year after the eleven-year reign of Jehoiakim had closed. On Jeremiah 52:28 sq. see below. 2 Kings 24:13. And he carried out thence, &c., that is, from the city which he had entered after seizing the king and his chief men. In the first place he took all there was in the treasuries of the temple and the royal palace, and then he took the utensils of the temple. The meaning of εַ ?ιְ ?χַ ?φֵּ ?υ is not altogether clear. “To tear off the gold surface” (Keil) is a meaning which is not applicable to “all the vessels,” for many of these were entirely of gold, as, for instance, the candlesticks, and such, we may be sure, he did not leave behind. The Sept. have συνέκοψε, the Vulg. concidit or confregit (2 Kings 18:16), hence Thenius renders it: “to crush into shapeless masses,” but, if this had been done, Cyrus would not have been able to give these articles back again to the Jews, as it is stated in Ezekiel 1:7-11 that he did do. We must understand it to mean, to tear away violently, avellit (Winer), for the most of these articles were no doubt fastened to the floor of the temple. δֵ ?ιλָ ?μ does not mean the temple as a whole, but the sanctuary, the “dwelling,” all the articles in which were of gold. Nebuchadnezzar did not take away the brazen vessels from the forecourt until he destroyed Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:13 sq.).—As the Lord had said, 2 Kings 20:17; cf. Jeremiah 15:13; Jeremiah 17:3. 2 Kings 24:14. And he carried away captive all Jerusalem. He left only the poorest and humblest of the population, because nothing was to be feared from them (see Jeremiah 39:10 : “the poor of the people which had nothing”). 2 Kings 24:14 states in general, and in round numbers, what persons were taken into exile. There were two classes: first, the ωָׂ ?ψִ ?ιν, the chiefs [E. V. “princes”], not the military chiefs, but the chief men of rank, the nobles, and the βִּ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ψֵ ?ιδַ ?ηַ ?ιִ ?μ, i.e., the mighty men of wealth, the rich (2 Kings 15:20); and second, δֶ ?ηָ ?ψָ ?ωׁ, the artisans, the workers either in brass, or iron, or wood (Isaiah 44:12-13; Genesis 4:22; 1 Kings 7:14), and δַ ?ξִּ ?ρְ ?βֵ ?ψ, i.e., not “common laborers who broke stone and carried burdens” (Hitzig on Jeremiah 24:1), but, literally, one who shuts in, encloses, or locks up, from ρβψ, to close, or shut up, and so, according to Ewald: “persons who are skilled in siege operations (from δρβιψ, to invest or enclose, cf. Jeremiah 13:19),” but we prefer to understand by it locksmiths, inasmuch as these also made weapons (1 Samuel 13:19). When these persons were taken away into captivity the rest were deprived of the power to revolt or to make war. There were in all ten thousand of the exiles. 2 Kings 24:15-16 are not a mere repetition of 2 Kings 24:14; they particularize what 2 Kings 24:14 stated in general. The king and his court are mentioned first, then the ΰεּ ?μֵ ?ιδָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ (keri, ΰֵ ?ιμֵ ?ι), that is, the mighty men of the land, who are included in the ωָׂ ?ψִ ?ιν in 2 Kings 24:14, then the ΰַ ?πְ ?ωֵׁ ?ιδַ ?ηַ ?ιִ ?μ, who are there called βִּ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ψֵ ?ιδַ ?ηַ ?ιִ ?μ. There were seven thousand of the rich and noble, and one thousand of the two classes of artisans. δַ ?λֹּ ?μ in 2 Kings 24:16 (not εְ ?λֹ ?μ) “gathers in one all who have been mentioned, and it is then specified in regard to them that they were all men in the prime of life, and that they were familiar with the use of weapons” (Thenius). We see from Jeremiah 29. that there were also priests and prophets among them, and according to Josephus, (Antiq. x. 6, 3) especially ὁ προφήτης ’Ιεζείλοςπαῖςὤν. Cf. Ezekiel 1:1-3. 2 Kings 24:17. Mattaniah was, according to 1 Chronicles 3:15, the third son of Josiah, so that he was the uncle of the exiled king Jehoiachin (Jeremiah 37:1). ΰָ ?ηִ ?ιε, 2 Chronicles 36:10, must not, therefore, be translated: “his brother,” but: “his cousin,” or, “his relative,” a sense in which it frequently occurs. (Sept. ἀδελφὸντοῦ πατρὸςαὐτοῦ). On the change of name see notes on 2 Kings 23:34. Nebuchadnezzar did not choose the name, he only approved of the new name chosen by the king, as Necho had done in the case of Jehoiakim. ξַ ?ϊָּ ?ο, gift, is changed to φֶ ?γֶ ?χ, justice, righteousness, so that the name means: “the righteousness of Jehovah,” that is, “he by whom Jehovah executes justice.” It is hardly probable that the king meant by this name to identify himself with ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δφִ ?γְ ?χֵ ?πεּ promised by Jeremiah (23:6), as Hengstenberg and Von Gerlach think; it is much more likely that the prophet took occasion from the king’s name, with which his character did not at all correspond, to promise that one should come to whom alone this name might justly be applied.—Nebuchadnezzar showed himself merciful in that he put another member of the native dynasty on the throne, and did not appoint a stranger and foreigner as viceroy. 2 Kings 24:18. Zedekiah was twenty and one years old. Of the passage from this verse on to the end of the book, Jeremiah 52:1-34 is a duplicate, almost word for word. The only differences are that Jerem. lacks 2 Kings 25:22-26, and 2 Kings lacks Jeremiah 52:28-30. It follows that neither one is borrowed from the other. Moreover there are also a few other slight differences, as, for instance, 2 Kings 25:16-17 compared with Jeremiah 52:20-23. It is certain that the fifty-second chapter of Jeremiah is an appendix to the discourses of that prophet, and that it does not come from his hand, for it is impossible that he should have survived the liberation of Jehoiachin (Jeremiah 52:31). (See the Introd. § 1.) Although it is not true that the text in Kings is “thoroughly corrupt” (Hitzig), yet that in Jerem. is, on the whole, to be preferred, and is therefore the more original. On the other hand, that of Kings has some peculiar excellences, as, for instance, 25:6, 7, 11, 17 compared with Jeremiah 52:9-10; Jeremiah 52:15; Jeremiah 52:20. We are driven to a conclusion similar to that which we reached in regard to the history of Hezekiah (see p. 201), and which is adopted also by Keil and Thenius, that both narratives were borrowed from one source which is now lost.—The mother of Zedekiah was also, according to 2 Kings 23:31, the mother of Jehoahaz; he was, therefore, the full brother of the latter, and the step-brother of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 23:36). On 2 Kings 24:20 see notes on 24:3. The author means to say that, as this king and the people persisted in their evil ways, the judgment which had long been threatened was executed in this reign. The special occasion of it was his revolt from Nebuchadnezzar who had put him upon the throne, and, according to 2 Chronicles 36:13 and Ezekiel 17:13, had taken an oath of fidelity from him. The year of this revolt cannot be accurately determined. At the commencement of his reign he sent an embassy to Babylon, as it seems, in order to bring about the release of the captives who had been carried away under Jehoiachin (Jeremiah 29:3 sq.). In his fourth year he himself went thither with Seraiah, probably with the same intention, but in vain (Jeremiah 51:59). Then came ambassadors from the neighboring peoples who wanted to unite with Zedekiah in a common effort to cast off the Babylonian yoke (Jeremiah 27:3). False prophets encouraged him to agree to this (Jeremiah 28). This led him to send to Egypt “that they might give him horses and much people” (Ezekiel 17:15). As the Chaldean army was before Jerusalem in Zedekiah’s ninth year, the revolt must have taken place, at the latest, in his eighth year, but it probably took place in his seventh, or perhaps even earlier. 2 Kings 25:1. And it came to pass in the ninth year, &c. These dates can be given thus accurately to the month and the day, because the Jews were accustomed during the exile to fast on the anniversary of these days of disaster (Zechariah 7:3; Zechariah 7:5; Zechariah 8:19). It is evident from 2 Kings 25:6 that Nebuchadnezzar did not come to Jerusalem himself, but remained at Riblah (2 Kings 23:33), and sent his army from thence against Jerusalem. According to Jeremiah 34:7 they also besieged Lachish and Azekah, the only two strongholds remaining. The word γָּ ?ιֵ ?χ cannot mean a “wall” (De Wette), for it stands in contrast with ρֹ ?μְ ?μָ ?δ as something different (Ezekiel 4:2; Ezekiel 17:17; Ezekiel 21:27). It is ordinarily derived from γּ ?εּ ?χ speculari, to observe, to watch, and is understood to mean a “watch-tower,” or, collectively, “watch-towers” (Hδvernick on Ezekiel 4:2; Gesenius, Keil), but ρָ ?αִ ?ια, which does not refer to observation but to an encircling on all sides, does not fit this meaning. The Sept. translate it in Ezekiel 4:2, by προμαχών, a bulwark, a rampart, in Ezekiel 17:17; Ezekiel 21:27 by βελόστασις, a machine for throwing missiles, and this place they translate: περιῳκοδόμησενἐπ’ αὐτὴντεῖχοςκύκλῳ; the Vulg. has munitiones. Hitzig understands by it “lines of circumvallation,” and Thenius “the outermost of the siege lines, built only of palisades, and intended to prevent the introduction of supplies,” &c., but this last cannot be so accurately determined. We must, therefore, content ourselves with the less definite meaning, “bulwark,” or, “siege-work.” Vatablus: Machinam bellicam, qualisqualis fuerit.2 Kings 25:2. Unto the eleventh year, &c. The siege lasted in all one year five months and twenty-seven days, for the city was very strongly fortified (2 Chronicles 32:5; 2 Chronicles 33:14). This is conclusive against the assumption that a capture of the city is implied in 24:1 sq. According to Jeremiah 37:5; Jeremiah 37:11, the besieging army, or at least a part of it, raised the siege and marched against the Egyptian army which was coming to the help of the Jews. It would thus appear that the siege was interrupted for a time.—Jeremiah gives the date in 2 Kings 25:3 more accurately (see Jeremiah 39:2; Jeremiah 52:6): “In the fourth month, on the ninth [day] of the month.” The first words αַּ ?ηֹ ?ψֶ ?ωׁ δָ ?ψְ ?αִ ?ιςִ ?ι have been omitted by some accident in the version, in Kings, and they must be supplied. How severe the famine was, and what horrors came to pass as a consequence of it, may be seen from Lamentations 2:11-12; Lamentations 2:19; Lamentations 4:3-10 (Ezekiel 5:10; Bar 2:3). See also Jeremiah 37:21. The famine did not begin on the ninth of the fourth month, but had become so severe at that time that the people were no longer capable of making a strong resistance; so on that day the enemy was able to storm the city. 2 Kings 25:4. And a breach was made in the city. This breach was on the north side, for, according to Jeremiah 39:3, the leaders of the Chaldean army, when they came in, halted and seated themselves in “the middle gate,” that is, in the gate which was in the wall between the upper, southern city (Zion), and the lower northern city, and which led from one of these into the other. When the king learned of this he took to flight with his warriors by night. In the text before us not only is “Zedekiah, king of Judah” (Jeremiah 39:4) omitted after δָ ?ςִ ?ιψ, but also the predicate ιִ ?αְ ?ψְ ?ηεּ εַ ?ιֵּ ?φְ ?ΰεּ (Jeremiah 39:4; Jeremiah 52:7) is omitted after “men of war.” All the old versions supply at least one of these words. They fled towards the south, because the enemy had penetrated by the north side, and there was no hope of escaping that way, but even on this side they had to fight their way through, for the Chaldeans had invested the entire city (ρָ ?αִ ?ια). The attempt derived its only hope of success from the darkness, and from the greater weakness of the besieging force on the south side.—By the way of the gate between, &c. This gate, called the gate of the fountain (Nehemiah 3:15), was at the southern end of the ravine between Ophel and Zion, the Tyropoion. At this point, inasmuch as it was the site of the pool of Siloam and there were cisterns to be protected, and inasmuch also as the formation of the ground made it a convenient place for the enemy to attack (Thenius), two walls had been built, between which was this gate (Sept.: ὀδὸνπύληςτῆςἀνὰ μέσοντῶντειχῶν, and in Jeremiah 52:7 : ἀνὰ μέσοντοῦ τείχουςκαὶ τοῦ προτειχίσματος. This double wall is also mentioned in Isaiah 22:11. The way of the gate is the way through that gate out of the city. It is not quite certain whether the king’s garden was inside or outside of this double wall; Thenius assumes that it was outside (see Map of Jerusalem Before the Exile, appended to his commentary). It is said in Ezekiel 12:12 : “The prince … shall bear upon his shoulder in the twilight, and shall go forth; they shall dig through the wall (αַ ?χִ ?ιψ) to carry [him] out thereby.” Here χִ ?ιψ cannot be understood to refer to either of those walls, for he went through the gate; moreover it would have been impossible to break through such a wall in the night. We must therefore understand it of that wall which the enemy had built all around the city (2 Kings 25:1), and which it was necessary to break through. The fugitives then took the way to the plain (δָ ?ςֲ ?ψָ ?αָ ?δ), that is, to the plains or meadows through which the Jordan flows, and which were called the plain (Joshua 11:2; Joshua 12:3; 2 Samuel 2:29; 2 Samuel 4:7). Their intention was to cross the Jordan and escape, but they were overtaken near Jericho, six hours journey from Jerusalem. 2 Kings 25:6. So they took the king, &c. On Riblah see notes on 2 Kings 23:33. “Nebuchadnezzar was not present at the storming of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 39:3), he awaited the result in his camp” (Thenius). Instead of the plurals εַ ?ιְּ ?γַ ?αְּ ?ψεּ and ωָׁ ?ηֲ ?θεּ in 2 Kings 25:7, we find in Jeremiah 39:5; Jeremiah 52:9 the singular with Nebuchadnezzar as the subject. Although the latter may be the more original reading, the sense is the same in either case, for Nebuchadnezzar certainly did not put Zedekiah’s sons to death with his own hand; he appointed a tribunal which judged and executed them. Instead of the singular ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ Jeremiah has, in the places quoted and elsewhere, the plural, ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θִ ?ιν. With γִ ?αֶּ ?ψ it means, to deal with and decide a question of law. This trial cannot have occupied much time, for it was a matter of common notoriety that Zedekiah had broken his oath of allegiance and revolted. The sons of Zedekiah, not all his children, had fled with him. They also were regarded as rebels and put to death, in order to put an end to the dynasty. His daughters were taken away as captives according to Jerem. 41:20. As for Zedekiah himself, he was to suffer a painful punishment as long as he lived. His eyes were put out. This form of punishment was used by the Chaldeans and ancient Persians (Herod. 7:18). Princes are still disabled in this way in Persia when it is desired to deprive them of any prospect of the throne. “A rod of silver (or of brass), heated glowing hot, is passed over the open eye” (Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 15). The Vulg. has oculos ejus effodit, and on Jeremiah 52:11 : oculos eruit. It was also a customary mode of punishment in the Orient to pierce out the eyes (Ctes. Pers. 5). “Plate No. 18 in Botta (Monum. de Nin.) represents a king who is in the act of piercing out with a lance the eyes of a captive of no ordinary rank who kneels before him” (Thenius). See Cassel on Judges 16:21. However the act of piercing out the eyes is not generally expressed by ςִ ?εִּ ?ψִ, but by πִ ?χַּ ?ψ, Judges 16:21; 1 Samuel 11:2; Numbers 16:14.—With fetters of brass, and double fetters at that, πְ ?ηֻ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ινִ. He was doubly fettered hand and foot, and brought to Babylon. In Jeremiah 52:11 the words follow: “And put him in prison till the day of his death.” The Sept. have: εἰςοἰκίανμύλωνος, evidently having in mind Judges 16:21. The author of the Book of Kings may have thought that this statement was unnecessary, since every person who was in chains was put in the prison as a matter of course. According to Jeremiah 39:6; Jeremiah 52:10, “All the nobles of Judah” were put to death with the sons of Zedekiah, that is, those who had fled with him. There is no reason to regard this as a false feature of the story borrowed from 2 Kings 25:21, as Thenius does. — [Supplementary Note on contemporaneous history. In the note on p. 247 we brought our notice of contemporaneous history down to the year 640, the year in which Josiah ascended the throne. The commotion of the next sixty years, during which Assyria ceased to be a nation, Egypt was humbled, and the Median and Babylonian empires advanced to the first place, amounted to an historical cataclysm. In the Bible we have references to these movements only when, and in so far as, they affected the fortunes of the Jewish people. This they did in the most important manner, and, in order to understand the influence of the neighboring nations on Judah at this time, it is necessary to have a comprehensive, if not exhaustive, knowledge of the historical movements which were in progress in Asia. It should be distinctly understood that the history of the period now before us is very obscure. We have no historical inscriptions to guide us, and are thrown upon the authority of literary remains which are imperfect and inconsistent. Our chief authorities, Rawlinson and Lenormant (Sir H. Rawlinson and Oppert) differ very materially. It is therefore to be understood that what is here given is only conjectural and provisional. The great question in dispute, on which the adjustment of the fragments of information which we possess into a smooth narrative depends, is as to the year in which Nineveh was taken, whether it was in 625 (Rawlinson), or in 606 (Lenormant). The weight of authority is in favor of the latter, though it is open to serious historical objections. It is, at present, impossible to bring this question to a final decision. In 640 Asshur-edil-ilani (L.), or, Asshur-emidilin (R.) was on the throne of Assyria. His reign ended about 626–5. Rawlinson, putting the fall of Nineveh at this date, identifies this king with the Saracus, or Assaracus, of Abydenus. Lenormant, putting the fall of Nineveh in 606, supposes that Saracus was another and the last king, who reigned from 625 to 606. The last king was far inferior to his ancestors. Under him the empire was unable to meet the attacks which fell upon it. The Medes, whose first attack on Assyria, under Phraortes, we mentioned above (p. 247), were a hardy mountain people who now arose into prominence. Cyaxares, the successor of Phraortes, made elaborate preparations to renew the attempts at conquest towards the west. He was ready for the attack (Rawl.), or made it (Lenor.), either alone (R.) or in conjunction with the Chaldeans, under Nabopolassar (L.), either in 634 (R.) or in 625 (L.). This attack was interrupted by the appearance of new actors on the scene. A horde of barbarians from the north, Scythia, poured down upon the nations in the Euphrates valley. They were of the same origin as the Goths, Huns, Avari, and Vandals, who appeared in Europe early in the Christian era, and their behavior, whithersoever they came, was the same as that of the barbarians who entered Europe. They poured over Media, Assyria, and Babylonia, and spread westward into Syria and Palestine. On the borders of Egypt they found Psammetichus besieging Ashdod. He persuaded them by gifts to turn back, and thus checked their advance in this direction. Herodotus says that their sway lasted for nineteen years. It is difficult to tell what this means, for in some countries, Media for instance, the natives overcame them sooner than in others. They were not able to found any permanent authority in any country. They perished by luxury and vice, were slain, or employed as mercenaries. Jeremiah refers to them in Jeremiah 6:22 sq.; Jeremiah 8:16; Jeremiah 9:10; Jeremiah 5:15, and, in the 50th chap., where he foretells the destruction of Babylon, the Scythian invasion furnishes the colors of the picture in which he describes it. Rawlinson puts their invasion in 632; Lenormant in 625. Rawlinson supposes, that after the Scythian invasion had subsided, the Medes renewed the attack on Nineveh, and secured the alliance of Nabopolassar, in 625, when Nineveh was taken and destroyed. In 610 Psammetichus died, and Necho succeeded on the throne of Egypt. Necho reigned from 610 to 595. He was young and ambitious, and he planned an expedition into Asia, no doubt, if Assyria had already fallen, with the intention of winning the western provinces for himself. He marched through Philistia and Samaria. Here Josiah of Judah marched out to meet him (2 Kings 23:29). We do not need to seek far for a reason for Josiah’s action. It may have been inspired, as is generally supposed, by a desire to manifest fidelity to his suzerain, Babylon (R.), but it is a more simple explanation to notice that, under the existing weakness of Assyria, Josiah had been able to exercise sovereignty over some portion of Samaria (2 Kings 23:15 sq.). If the Babylonians were already the supreme power, they had not interfered with this. If Egypt conquered Samaria, it was at an end. Josiah, therefore, had a very natural and simple interest in opposing the Egyptian invasion. If Necho intended at this time to measure his strength with the Babylonians, he certainly desisted from that project. The words in 2 Chronicles 35:21 throw no light on the party he intended to attack. There is ground here for believing that Nineveh had not yet fallen, and that the Babylonians had not yet displayed their power. Necho saw in the feebleness of Assyria an opportunity to conquer its western provinces, and the force which he had was probably only such an one as he considered necessary for this purpose. Josiah was not, therefore, as rash as we might at first suppose (cf. Ewald III. 762–3d ed. He seems to think, however, that Necho may have taken Carchemish at this time, cf. ss. 782–3). However, the Jewish king was killed in the battle, and his second son Jehoahaz was made king. Necho pursued his course of conquest with success for three months. On his return, he regarded Judah also, by virtue of his victory at Megiddo, as a conquered province, although he had declared at the outset that he had no hostile design against that country (2 Chronicles 35:21). He refused to ratify the election of Jehoahaz, but took him (probably sent a detachment to bring him) from Jerusalem to the camp at Riblah (2 Kings 23:33), where he put him in chains, and carried him captive to Egypt. He made Judah tributary. Jeremiah (22:10) calls Jehoahaz more worthy of pity in his captivity than his father in his death, and Ewald, with good reason, interprets the parable (Ezekiel 19, especially 2 Kings 23:2-4) of Jehoiakim. Necho put the elder brother Eliakim on the throne, changing his name to Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34). This was in 609 or 608. Necho at this time took Gaza (Jeremiah 47:1), and remained sovereign over the western provinces for two or three years. We come now to the year 606 in which Nineveh was taken according to Oppert, Lenormant, Ewald, and others. The historical features of this event, aside from the question of its date, are as follows. The king of Assyria sent to Babylon, as satrap, a general named Nabopolassar (Nebo-protects-my-son), probably an Assyrian. It is certain that, when the final attack was made, it was twofold, both from Media and from the south. Nabopolassar and Cyaxares formed an alliance which was cemented by the marriage of Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar, with Amyitis, daughter of Cyaxares. Rawlinson’s idea is that Nabopolassar was charged with the defence against the attack from the south, but turned traitor. This supposition is necessary since he does not think that the Chaldeans participated in the first attack. Lenormant supposes that Nabopolassar was sent to Babylon as satrap, that he matured plans of revolt, that he joined in the first attack, and that he employed the interval of nineteen years in establishing his independence. He also thinks that Nabopolassar was, in 607, an old and broken man, that he associated his son Nebuchadnezzar with himself on the throne in that year, and that, therefore, the capture of Nineveh is really to be reckoned among the exploits of that prince. He supposes that certain chronological discrepancies are to be accounted for by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar became joint ruler in 607, so that two starting-points for his reign were confused. (See 2 Kings 25:8, and Jeremiah 52:28-30.) The attack of the confederated Medes and Chaldeans was successful, and Saracus perished with his court and treasures in the downfall of the city. Nebuchadnezzar now becomes the chief figure in the drama. He was a prince of extraordinary talents and energy, and he consolidated, if we may not say that he actually established, the Babylonian monarchy. Having destroyed Nineveh, his next task was to recover that portion of his new conquest which the Egyptians had held in possession for two or three years. In 605, the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 46:2), he met Necho, who came out to defend his possessions, at Carchemish, on the Euphrates, and totally defeated him. He pursued the Egyptians to the border of Egypt (2 Kings 24:7), and no doubt intended to push on into that country, when news came to him (604) that his father was dead. He hastened to Babylon with a small escort through the nearer, but more dangerous, way of the desert. He met with no opposition in ascending the throne, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim of Judah (Jeremiah 25:1). In the haste of these movements, Judah had remained secure in its mountains. Nebuchadnezzar’s army marched to Egypt in two columns, one through Philistia and one through Perea (Lenormant). But Nebuchadnezzar soon returned to Palestine and Ph�nicia to complete the work of conquest. In 602 or 601 he made Jehoiakim tributary (2 Kings 24:1) and took away certain hostages or captives. In 599 or 598 Jehoiakim planned a revolt (2 Kings 24:1), relying on help from Egypt. Rawlinson thinks that the embassy mentioned in Jeremiah 26:22 had for its object to form this alliance, and that the matter of Urijah was only a pretext. Nebuchadnezzar first incited the neighboring nations against him (2 Kings 24:2), and then himself marched into Judah. Jehoiakim died at this time, and Jehoiachin, his son, succeeded (2 Kings 24:8). He was not able to resist the Chaldeans, and surrendered at discretion (2 Kings 24:12). He was taken away prisoner, with 10,000 other captives (2 Kings 24:13-14), the most energetic and independent portion of the people. The city and temple were plundered, and Mattaniah, the youngest son of Josiah, was put upon the throne by Nebuchadnezzar, under the name of Zedekiah (24:17). Lenormant justly says of Zedekiah that he was only a Babylonian satrap. A strong party urged him continually to revolt, but Jeremiah counselled patience and submission. In 595 the princes of the neighboring countries met at Jerusalem (Jeremiah 27:3) to plan a concerted revolt, but Zedekiah was persuaded by Jeremiah to renounce this plan (Jeremiah 27.). He went to Babylon (in his fourth year, 594) to counteract suspicions of his fidelity which had been aroused (Jeremiah 51:59). However, he again cherished similar plans, and entered into negotiations with Uaprahet (Uaphris, Apries. Hophra) of Egypt. The Chaldeans again invaded Judah in 590. The siege of Jerusalem began early in January, 589 (Lenorm.). During this siege the serfs were manumitted, that they might help in the defence (Jeremiah 34.). The Egyptians advanced to the relief of Jerusalem, the Chaldeans turned to meet the attack, and the hopes of the Jews revived so far that the freedmen were once more enslaved. This diversion, however, produced no effect. It is uncertain whether a battle was really fought and lost by the Egyptians (Josephus, Antiq. X. vii. 3), or whether they retreated without fighting at all. In 588 a breach was made and the Chaldeans entered the city (Jeremiah 25:3-4). Zedekiah fled (Jeremiah 25:4), hoping to break through the investing lines, but he was captured and taken to Riblah (Jeremiah 25:6), where Nebuchadnezzar was encamped. His sons were slain before his eyes. He was then blinded and taken captive to Babylon. One month later (Jeremiah 25:8; cf. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ B.—Fall of the Kingdom of Judah; Jehoiachin set at Liberty2 Kings 25:8-30. (Jeremiah 52:12-34.)8And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzar-adan,captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem: 9And he burnt the house of the Lord, and the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man’s [omit man’s] house burnt he with fire. 10And all the army of the Chaldees, that were with the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about. 11Now the rest of the people that were left in the city, and the fugitives that fell away to the king of Babylon, with the remnant of the multitude, did Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard carry away. 12But the captain of the guard left of the poor of the land to be [read to be] vinedressers and husbandmen. 13And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the Lord, and the bases, and the brazen sea that was in the house of the Lord, did the Chaldees break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon. 14And the pots, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the spoons, and all the vessels of brass wherewith they ministered [the service was performed], took they away. 15And the firepans, and the bowls [sprinklers], and such things as were of gold, in gold, and of silver, in silver, the captain of the guard took away. 16The two pillars, one sea, and the bases which Solomon had made for the house of the Lord; the brass of all these vessels was without weight. 17The height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits, and the chapiter [capital] upon it was brass; and the height of the chapiter three cubits; and the wreathen work, and pomegranates upon the chapiter round about, all of brass: and like unto these had the second pillar with wreathen work. 18And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest, and the three keepers of the door: 19And out of the city he took an officer that was set over the men of war, and five men of them that were in the king’s presence, which were found in the city, and the principal [omit principal] scribe of the [captain of the] host, which mustered the people of the land, and threescore men of the people of the land that were found in the 20city: And Nebuzar-adan captain of the guard took these, and brought them to the king of Babylon to Riblah: 21And the king of Babylon smote them, and slew them at Riblah in the land of Hamath. So Judah was carried away out of their 22land. And as for the people that remained in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had left, even over them he made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, ruler. 23And when all the captains of the armies, they and their [the] men, heard that the king of Babylon had made Gedaliah governor, there came to Gedaliah to Mizpah, even Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and Johanan the son of Careah, and Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah the son of a Maachathite, they and their men. 24And Gedaliah sware to them, and to their men, and said unto them, Fear not to be [omit to be] the servants of the Chaldees: dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon; and it shall be well with you. 25But it came to pass in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed royal, came, and ten men with him, and smote Gedaliah, that he died [and put him to death], and the Jews and the Chaldees that were with him at Mizpah. 26And all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the armies, arose, and came to Egypt: for they were afraid of the Chaldees. 27And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison; 28And he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were 29with him in Babylon; [.] And [he] changed his prison garments: and he did eat bread continually before him [in his presence, i.e., at his table] all the days of his life. 30And his allowance was a continual allowance given him of the king, a daily rate for every day, all the days of his life. Chronology Of The Period From The Fall Of The Kingdom Of Israel To The Fall Of The Kingdom Of JudahAlthough the chronology of this period presents far fewer difficulties than that of the two former ones (pp. 86 and 180), yet a certain transmutation of its data into dates of the Christian era is hardly possible, for this reason, that the number of years stated as the duration of each reign does not always represent so many complete twelvemonths, and, of course, the years intended are not years of the Christian era, so that one year of a reign may fall in two different years “before Christ,” and two years of these reigns may fall in one year b.c. We cannot, therefore, avoid some uncertainties in the transfer from one to the other of these two modes of reckoning, and a difference of a single year cannot demand an explanation, or vitiate the calculation. (a) Let us start from the fixed date which we have reached above (p. 181), 721 b.c., the year of the fall of Samaria. As this was the sixth year of Hezekiah, who reigned twenty-nine years (2 Kings 18:10), there remain twenty-three years of his reign to be reckoned into this period. This gives us the following results:— Reigned forHezekiah23yearslonger,i.e.,until698.Manasseh55years(2 Kings 21:1)““643.Amon2years(2 Kings 21:19)““641.Josiah31years(2 Kings 22:1)““610.Jehoahaz3mos.(2 Kings 23:31)““Jehoiakim11yrs.(2 Kings 23:36)““599.Jehoiachin3mos.(2 Kings 24:8).““Zedekiah11yrs.(2 Kings 24:18)““588.The Book of Chronicles agrees exactly in all these dates. There is no variant in regard to a single one of them; the old versions have them exactly as they are given in the Hebrew text, and Josephus also gives the same. We are, therefore, as sure of these numbers as of any. Some modern scholars have taken scruples at the long reign of fifty-five years which is ascribed to Manasseh, and have shortened it arbitrarily either to thirty-five years (Movers, Von Gumpach), or to forty-five years (Bunsen, Wolff). This change, however, is inadmissible, for it necessitates other changes and throws the whole chronology into confusion. [This change is made in the interest of what is known as the “shorter period” for the space of history which is here included. The grounds for it are found in the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian chronologies. The problem is very complex, and the solution of it is hampered at many points by the uncertainty of many of the data. The majority of scholars have not, therefore, thought it wise to make any changes in the Hebrew chronology, to bring it into accord with that of contemporary nations, until the latter shall be more satisfactorily determined. Those who desire to attempt, even now, to bring about an accord, find it necessary to shorten the time which is required by the sum of the reigns for this period, and they see in the long reign ascribed to Manasseh the point where the error is most likely to lie.—W. G. S.] The time for which the kingdom of Judah outlasted the kingdom of Israel amounts to 133 years. The six months for which Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin reigned are here left out of the account, and with justice, for it can hardly be that the years ascribed to the other reigns were all full twelvemonths. It is immaterial whether each three months’ reign is reckoned into the preceding or the following reign. It is possible that Zedekiah did not ascend the throne until 598, so that he reigned until 587, but in no case can his dethronement be placed later than 587. Instead of the year 588, in which, according to our reckoning, the fall of Jerusalem took place, many have lately adopted 586 as the date of that event. Bunsen, starting from the very uncertain Assyrio-Egyptian chronology, puts the fall of Samaria in 709 instead of in 721. He would be obliged, if he admitted 133 years for the subsequent duration of the kingdom of Judah, to put the fall of Jerusalem in 576, but, as he sees that this is inadmissible, he arbitrarily cuts off ten years from the reign of Manasseh and thus reaches the date 586. Ewald also adopts the date 586, but he reaches it by putting the fall of Samaria in 719 instead of in 721. This obliges him to set the date of accession of each of the following kings two years later than our dates, and thus he arrives at 586 instead of 588. We saw above (p. 181) that the date 719 is incorrect; with the incorrectness of this date, the date 586 falls to the ground. If, as we have seen, the date 721 is certainly established, then 588 is the only date which can be correct for the fall of Jerusalem, for, even if we suppose that all the years of all the reigns were full years, they only amount to 133 years. (b) Besides the statements as to the duration of these reigns, we have the following chronological data in regard to them: (1) The thirteenth year of Josiah is given as the year in which Jeremiah first appeared as a prophet (Jeremiah 1:1). This was the year 628, for Josiah began to reign in 641. Also the eighteenth year of Josiah is mentioned as the year of his reformation and celebration of the passover—that is, 623 (2 Kings 22:3; 2 Kings 23:23). As Josiah was slain in his battle with Necho, the invasion of Asia by the latter took place in Josiah’s thirty-first year, that is, in 610. The invasion of Judah by the Scyths, which is not mentioned at all in the historical books, must have taken place during the reign of Josiah, not before the public appearance of Jeremiah (628), and not after the great reformation (623). Duncker sets it in the fourteenth year of Josiah’s reign, that is, 627. [See the Supp. Note, p. 285.—(2) King Jehoiakim ascended the throne either at the very end of 610, or perhaps in 609, for Jehoahaz reigned for three months after Josiah’s death. According to Jeremiah 46:2, the great battle at Carchemish, in consequence of which Nebuchadnezzar advanced into Palestine, took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, that is, in 605 or 604 (see notes on 2 Kings 23:36). In this same fourth year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah caused to be written down his prophecies, which were solemnly read in public in the following year, on a great holiday (Jeremiah 36:1; Jeremiah 36:9). Up to this time, therefore, Jehoiakim was not yet subject to Nebuchadnezzar; he cannot have become so until the end of 605 or the beginning of 604. He revolted after three years (2 Kings 24:1), that is, in 602 or 601. Chaldean and other forces harassed him from that time until his death in 599 (2 Kings 24:2 sq.).—(3) As Jehoiachin only reigned three months, it may well be that Zedekiah ascended the throne before the end of the year (599) in which Jehoiakim died. His fourth year, in which, according to Jeremiah 51:59, he made a journey to Babylon, was, therefore, 595; certainly it was not 593, as Duncker and Ewald state, for, if he had not become king until the beginning of 598, this journey would fall, at the latest, in 594. In his ninth year, 590, the Chaldeans appeared before Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:1). In his tenth year (589), while the city was being besieged, he ordered Jeremiah to be imprisoned (Jeremiah 32:1). In his eleventh year (588), Jerusalem was taken, and Zedekiah was blinded and taken away captive to Babylon. In this same year occurred the destruction of the temple and of the city (2 Kings 25:4; 2 Kings 25:8). (c) Several synchronisms are given between the reigns of the Jewish kings and that of Nebuchadnezzar. According to Jeremiah 25:1, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar was the fourth of Jehoiakim (606), that is (see above), the year of the battle of Carchemish (Jeremiah 46:2). This first year of Nebuchadnezzar and fourth of Jehoiakim was also, according to Jeremiah 25:1-3, the twenty-third year of Jeremiah’s work as prophet, which began (Jeremiah 1:2) in the thirteenth year of Josiah (628). According to 2 Kings 24:12, Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin prisoner in his own eighth year, that is, in 599, in which year, as we have seen above, the three months’ reign of Jehoiachin fell. Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year corresponds, according to Jeremiah 32:1, to the tenth year of Zedekiah, that is, since Zedekiah became king in 599, 589, and his nineteenth year, in which he took Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:8; Jeremiah 52:2), corresponds to the eleventh year of Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:2). This is the year 588. In Jeremiah 52:28 sq., the seventh year is given instead of the eighth, and the eighteenth instead of the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar, but we shall see below, in the appendix to the Exegetical notes, that this difference, which only amounts at best to one year, is only apparent and not real. It cannot invalidate the calculation. The last chronological statement which occurs in the book is that, in the thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachin’s captivity, Evil-Merodach, Nebuchadnezzar’s successor, released Jehoiachin from his prison in Babylon (2 Kings 25:27; Jeremiah 52:31). As the exile took place in the year 599 (see above under a), the liberation must have occurred in 562. According to Josephus (Antiq. x. 11, 1) Nebuchadnezzar reigned for forty-three years. We have seen above that he became king in 606; his death, therefore, took place in 562. In this year Evil-Merodach followed him, and, on his accession, he showed grace to Jehoiachin. Thus the chronological statements in reference to this period which are presented by the Bible stand in the fullest accord with each other, and we have the more reason to hold to them, inasmuch as they are consistent with those of the former period. It is not our duty to inquire whether they agree with the results of the Assyrian and Egyptian investigations. We need only remark that these results are based, partly upon later unbiblical authors, and partly on attempts to decipher old Asiatic inscriptions, which have as yet produced no certain results, so that, as Rφsch says: “They are not yet by any means so firmly established that they could force us to surrender the data of the Old Testament.” [See the Appendix on the Chronology.] AND 2 Kings 25:8. And in the fifth month, on the seventh day. Instead of the seventh day, Jeremiah 52:12 gives the tenth day. As the tenth day was the day on which Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem, according to that passage, it is impossible to assume, with the Rabbis, that the seventh day was the day that the burning commenced, and the tenth the day on which it ended. Also in 2 Kings 25:17 Jeremiah has five cubits instead of three, and in 2 Kings 25:19 seven men instead of five. The difference in these numbers is to be explained by a mistake in the numeral-letters. In 2 Kings 25:17 the number five is unquestionably correct (cf. 1 Kings 7:16; 2 Chronicles 3:15), and in this verse the number ten (ι) no doubt is to be preferred to seven (ζ). In fact, the text of Jeremiah is in many respects to be preferred. Josephus (Bella Judges 6, 4, 8) states that Herod’s temple was burned on the tenth of the fifth month, and adds that it was a marvellous coincidence that the first temple was burned on the same day by the Babylonians.—The nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar. See the Chronological section above.—Nebuzar-adan. On the etymology and signification of this name see Gesenius, Thesaurus II., p. 839, and Fόrst, H.- W.-B. II., s. 6. [The former interprets it by Mercurii dux dominus, i. e., dux cui Mercurius favet], the latter considers it equivalent to the Hebrew expression which immediately follows: ψַ ?αΞθַ ?αָּ ?ηִ ?ιν (ωַׂ ?ψ, i.e., literally: The captain of the executioners, the one who commands those who are commissioned to execute the king’s commands, especially his death-sentences, and so, in general, the captain of the [royal] guard (Genesis 37:36). [“It is probably a Hebrew corruption of Nebu-zir-iddin, which means Nebo-has-given-offspring” (Rawlinson). This is the only explanation which has any value, since it alone rests on an etymological study of Chaldee names.—W. G. S.] The supplementary description in Jeremiah 52:12 : “Who stood before the king of Babylon,” designates him as the first and highest officer who stood nearest to the king. He therefore remained in the camp at Riblah with the king, and only went to Jerusalem for the execution, and not, as Thenius thinks, in order to bring the siege to a conclusion. [It is laying too much stress on the primary signification of the word, which, moreover, is incorrect, to suppose that he did not go up to the city until it had been taken, and that then his business was to “execute” upon it the vengeance or punishment ordained by the king. He went up as the chief officer of the king “to bring the siege to a conclusion,” to take possession of the city in the king’s name, and to carry out the king’s determinations in regard to it.—W. G. S.] 2 Kings 25:9. And he burnt the house of the Lord, &c. We see what is meant by αָּ ?μΞαָּ ?ϊֵּ ?ι, all the houses, from 2 Chronicles 36:19, where we read: αָּ ?μΞΰַ ?ψְ ?ξְ ?πεֹ ?ϊֶ ?ιδָ, all the palaces. He left the small houses standing for the poor and humble people who were left behind.—In Jeremiah 52:14 we find λָּ ?μ before ηεֹ ?ξֹ ?ϊ in 2 Kings 25:10. It has been omitted here by some accident, or because it was regarded as a matter of course; it is by no means “an arbitrary exaggeration” (Thenius). On the other hand we must supply ΰֶ ?η before ψַ ?α on the authority of the passage in Jeremiah. Many old MSS. contain it, and all the versions supply it. Nebuzar-adan directed the work of destruction; the entire army fulfilled his commands.—The exiles were composed, as the repetition of εְ ?ΰֶ ?ϊ shows, of “remnants” (ιֶ ?ϊֶ ?ψ) of two classes; first, of those whom famine, pestilence, and sword had yet spared, and those who had deserted to the Chaldeans; and, secondly, of ηֶ ?δָ ?ξεֹ ?ο, or, as we read in Jeremiah 52:15 δָ ?ΰָ ?ξεֹ ?ο, which Hitzig declares to be the original reading, and to mean master-workman in a collective sense, comprising both the classes which are mentioned in Jeremiah 24:1. The parallel passage, however, in Jeremiah 39:9 does not admit of this interpretation, for there we read: ιֶ ?ϊֶ ?ψδָ ?ςָ ?νδַ ?πִּ ?ωְ ?ΰָ ?ψִ ?ιν. δַ ?ςָ ?ν is not a synonym of δָ ?ΰָ ?ξεֹ ?ο (master-workman), but of δָ ?δָ ?ξεֹ ?ο (multitude). This latter word is used for the mass of the people, and especially for the multitude of persons capable of bearing arms (Isaiah 13:4; Isaiah 33:3; Judges 4:7; Daniel 11:11). We must understand this class of exiles to be the remainder of the able-bodied male population who were capable of bearing arms (Thenius). In ΰ ,δΰξεο is an error for δ. The one class were inhabitants of the city; the other were persons who had belonged to the army without being inhabitants of the city.—γַּ ?μַּ ?ϊδָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ, 2 Kings 25:12, is used as in 2 Kings 24:14. The words do not mean that he left vinedressers and husbandmen, but, as is stated in Jeremiah 39:10, that he “left of the poor of the people, which had nothing, in the land of Judah, and gave them vineyards and fields at the same time.” The Chaldee version has it, “that they might cultivate vineyards and fields.” The land was not to remain desert and uncultivated. 2 Kings 25:13. And the pillars of brass, &c. In regard to these pillars, and the bases, and the sea, see notes on 1 Kings 7:15-39. The ξִ ?ζְ ?ψָ ?χֹ ?ϊ (sprinklers), mentioned in Jeremiah 52:18, are not named among the utensils enumerated in 2 Kings 25:14 (for description of which see notes on 1 Kings 7:40; 1 Kings 7:50); they are mentioned in 2 Kings 25:15. In 2 Kings 25:15 we have the utensils of the forecourt, and in 2 Kings 25:15 those of the sanctuary. It is expressly stated in Jeremiah 27:19; Jeremiah 27:21 that there remained after the first spoliation, 2 Kings 24:13, a portion of these utensils which may have been hidden away at that time. The parallel passage, Jeremiah 52:19, adds four more to the utensils which are mentioned in 2 Kings 25:15. In general the account here is brief, and all articles not mentioned are summarily disposed of by the words: “such things as were of gold, in gold, and such things as were of silver, in silver,” i.e., “so much as there was to be found of either kind” (Thenius).—μχη is not to be supplied in 2 Kings 25:16 from 2 Kings 25:15, and δָ ?ςַ ?ξּ ?εּ ?γִ ?ιν, &c., are not the objects of this verb. The verse means to show that there was such a mass of the brass which was carried away that it could not be weighed. δָ ?ςַ ?ξּ ?εּ ?γִ ?ιν is a nominative absolute. As for the pillars, &c., the mass of the brass was so great, &c. ΰֶ ?ηָ ?γ with δַ ?ιָּ ?ν stands in contrast to ωְׁ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ν with δָ ?ςַ ?ξּ ?εּ ?γִ ?ιν. There were two of the pillars but only one sea.—In 2 Kings 25:17 the author recurs to the pillars in order to say that they were very valuable, not only on account of the mass of the brass which was on them (2 Kings 25:16), but also on account of the artistic labor which had been spent upon them . ωָׁ ?μωׁ, as has been said above, is an error, the consequence of mistaking the numeral character, for the height of the capital of the column, according to the consistent statements in 1 Kings 7:16; 2 Chronicles 3:15; and Jeremiah 52:22 was five cubits. ςַ ?μΞδַ ?ωְ ?αָ ?λָ ?δ, at the end of the verse, is difficult, for the second column was in all respects, and not simply in respect to the “wreathen work,” like to the first. Moreover, the wreathen work was not the most remarkable feature in these columns, so as to deserve to be especially mentioned. Thenius sees in the clause “the residuum of a sentence which is given in full in Jeremiah” [Jeremiah 52:23], and which closes with the words ςַ ?μΞδַ ?ωְׂ ?αָ ?λָ ?ηρָ ?αִ ?ια. We must admit either that the original account [which was used by the author of “Kings”] was here too much abbreviated by him, or else that the text at this point is defective. The account in Jeremiah is, at this point, fuller and more satisfactory. As this author had already given a full description of these things in 1 Kings 7:15-22, he did not think it necessary to go into detail here. 2 Kings 25:18. And the captain of the guard took Seraiah. The persons who are mentioned here and in 2 Kings 25:19 are not the same ones who are called, in Jeremiah 39:6, ηֹ ?ψִ ?ιν, and who were put to death with the sons of Zedekiah, for these were first captured by Nebuzar-adan after the taking of the city. Seraiah is not the person of that name who is mentioned in Jeremiah 51:59, but the grandfather or great-grandfather of Ezra (see Ezra 7:1; 1 Chron. 5:40). Zephaniah was no doubt the son of the priest Maaseiah, who, although a priest of the second rank (see notes on 2 Kings 23:4), appears to have been a person of importance (Jeremiah 21:2; Jeremiah 29:25; Jeremiah 29:29; Jeremiah 37:3). The three keepers of the door were the chiefs of the body of levites who guarded the temple; one was stationed at each of the three main entrances to the temple (Jeremiah 38:14); according to Josephus: τοὺςφυλάσσονταςτὸ ἱερὸνἡγεμόνας. The chief royal officers were also taken, together with these chief men in the personnel of the temple (2 Kings 25:19). ςִ ?ιψ stands in contrast with the temple; whether it has the narrower meaning of the “City of David” (Thenius), is uncertain. ρָ ?ψִ ?ιν cannot mean a eunuch here, any more than in 2 Kings 20:18; 2 Kings 24:12. The command of soldiers would never be intrusted to such a person. Jeremiah 52:25 has δָ ?ιָ ?δ instead of δεּ ?ΰ, evidently more correctly, for he was so no longer. We cannot tell whether five men of those who belonged to the king’s immediate circle were carried away, as is here stated, or seven, as is stated in Jeremiah 52:25. The diverse statements are the result of some error in reading or copying the numerals. Hitzig: “Seven persons are mentioned as having been chosen to be a sacrifice on account of the mystical significance of that number,” but the number five, half of ten, which was the number for a complete whole incorporated of parts, may also have had mystical significance. The reason why just this number, whether five or seven, were taken appears to be given in the relative clause which follows, and that is that there were just so many left in the city. ωַׂ ?ψδַ ?φָּ ?αָ ?ΰ is a genitive after δַ ?ρֹּ ?ξֵ ?ψ [the scribe of the captain of the host], and δַ ?ξַּ ?φְ ?αִּ ?ΰ is not to be joined with ωַׂ ?ψ but with δַ ?ρֹּ ?τֵ ?ψ [the scribe who was put on the staff of the commander-in-chief, and whose duty it was to enroll the persons liable to military service, &c.] The article with ρֹ ?ξֵ ?ψ (it is wanting in Jeremiah 52:25) shows that that is not a proper name in apposition with “Captain of the host,” as the Vulg. and Luther understand it: “Sopher, the commander of the army.” It means the general’s clerk, the officer who had charge of the writing which might be required. “Perhaps the commander himself had fled with the king” (Thenius). [Of course any one who filled this office at a time when writing was a special accomplishment would be a person of far more importance than a military clerk now is. The Babylonian king thought him an officer whom it was worth while to put to death among the high officials of the kingdom.—] The threescore men of the people of the land, who were put to death with the chief officers, were either “the chiefs of the rebellion with their immediate followers” (Von Gerlach), or “Such as had in some way distinguished themselves above others in the defence of the city” (Keil). It is very doubtful whether they were, as Thenius thinks, the handful that were left of the garrison of the city of David, and the opinion of Hitzig and Bertheau that they were the country people who had fled into the citadel is very improbable. 2 Kings 25:21. So Judah was carried out of their land. “Nebuzar-adan took up his march toward Riblah, not only with these who were destined to death, but also with all the people of Judah” (Hitzig). This sentence evidently closes the history, like Jeremiah 52:27, and 2 Kings 17:23. At the same time it forms the introduction to what follows. Thus was Judah (that is, the mass and strength of the nation) led away into captivity. As for those who were left behind (the comparatively small, and poor, and weak portion), Nebuchadnezzar set Gedaliah over them. 2 Kings 25:22. And as for the people that remained in the land of Judah. What is here narrated in 2 Kings 25:22-26 is omitted in Jeremiah 52 because it is narrated, in that book, in Jeremiah 40 and Jeremiah 41, and in much fuller detail. The verses before us form only an extract from that account, which is here inserted in its proper historical connection.—Gedaliah, whom Nebuchadnezzar appointed governor, was the son of Ahikam, who is mentioned in 2 Kings 22:12 as a man of importance under Josiah, and who, according to Jeremiah 26:24, saved the life of the prophet when, during Jehoiakim’s reign, he was in danger of falling a victim of popular rage. Gedaliah, like his father, was a friend of the prophet. He shared the prophet’s judgment in regard to the wise policy to be pursued, and joined with him in advising Zedekiah to surrender to the Babylonians (Jeremiah 38:17). Hence Nebuchadnezzar, after he had taken the city, intrusted the prophet, who until then had lain in captivity, to the care and protection of Gedaliah (Jeremiah 39:14; Jeremiah 40:6).—The captains of the armies, they and the men, &c. Instead of δָ ?ΰֲ ?πָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν we find in Jeremiah 40:7 : ΰַ ?πְ ?ωֵׁ ?ιδֶ ?ν, their men. These are they “who were scattered when the king was captured, so that Jeremiah 40:7 describes them as those ‘which were in the fields’ ” (Thenius). Mizpah was a city in the territory of Benjamin (Joshua 13:26), some hours’ journey north-west of Jerusalem. Here, in this city, which was situated in a high position and strongly fortified (1 Kings 15:22), the governor established himself, as he could not live in the destroyed city of Jerusalem. Ishmael, according to 2 Kings 25:25, was the grandson of Elishama, the ρֹ ?τֵ ?ψ of king Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 36:12; Jeremiah 36:20). For further particulars in regard to Johanan see Jeremiah 40:13 sq.; Jeremiah 41:11 sq. Jonathan is mentioned with him, Jeremiah 40:8, as another son of Careah. Possibly the similarity of the names caused the latter to be omitted in this place. Seraiah came from Netopha, which appears to have lain between Bethlehem and Anathoth (Ezra 2:22; Nehemiah 7:26). Jaazaniah came from Maacha, which is mentioned in 2 Samuel 10:6; 2 Samuel 10:8; 1 Chronicles 19:6, and Joshua 12:5, together with Syrian districts, and, in Deuteronomy 3:14, is mentioned as lying on the boundary of the country east of the Jordan. He was, therefore, a naturalized alien.—By the servants of the Chaldees (2 Kings 25:24) we have to understand the officers whom Nebuchadnezzar had left to govern the country, and whom he had perhaps put under Gedaliah’s command. The latter, therefore, makes promises on their behalf, provided that the Jewish captains would acquiesce in the new order of things. 2 Kings 25:25. In the seventh month, that is, only two months after the destruction of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:8). Of the seed royal; this is expressly stated in order to show what incited him to this action. He believed that he, as a descendant of the royal house, had a claim to the position of governor. According to Jeremiah 40:14 he was also incited to this action by Baalis, king of the Ammonites, who no doubt would have been very glad to throw off the Chaldean yoke.—The author breaks off abruptly with 2 Kings 25:26, and simply states the result of this act. The people, fearing the return and vengeance of the Chaldeans, fled into Egypt. For further details see Jeremiah 40-42. 2 Kings 25:27. In the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity. See the Chronological Remarks above. In Jeremiah 52:31 the twenty-fifth day is given instead of the twenty-seventh, in the Hebrew text, and in the Sept. the twenty-fourth, evidently in consequence of a mistake in the numerals. We see from this accuracy in the date what significance was attached to the event. Evilmerodach was the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. He only reigned two years and was put to death by his brother-in-law, Neriglassar (Berosus, cited in Josephus c. Apion. i. 20). The signification of Evil is uncertain. Merodach, or Berodach, was the name of the Babylonian Mars. We find it in the composition of other proper names also (see notes on 2 Kings 20:12). In the year that he became king. For ξָ ?μְ ?λεֹ we find in Jeremiah 52:31 : ξַ ?μְ ?λֻ ?ϊεֹ, i.e., of his reign, equivalent to: When he came to be king. This is evidently more correct. Sept.: ἐντῷ ἐνιαυτῷ τῆςβασιλείαςαὐτοῦ. πָ ?ωָׂ ?ΰΰֶ ?ϊΞψֹ ?ΰωׁ, as in Genesis 40:13; Genesis 40:20, means, To lift up the head (for some one), i.e., inasmuch as captives moved about in despondency, with bowed heads, to lift up their heads is to release them from captivity, despair, and misery (Job 10:15, cf. Judges 8:28). Here again the text before us is abbreviated. It omits εַ ?ιֹּ ?φֵ ?ΰ, which is found in Jeremiah 52:31, before ξִ ?αֵּ ?ιϊ. This deliverance from captivity was an act of grace performed by him at his accession, but there seems to have been a special ground for it in the case of Jehoiachin, as he was preferred before the other captive kings. [“The rabbis say that Evilmerodach had formed a friendship with Jehoiachin in prison, into which Nebuchadnezzar had cast the former because he had been guilty of excesses in carrying on the government during an illness of the king, and had expressed pleasure at the same; evidently a fiction based on this passage and Daniel 4.” (Thenius).]—And set his throne above, &c., 2 Kings 25:28. This certainly means that he gave him the preference and the higher rank. Whether he merely held him in higher estimation (Rosenmόller, Keil), or “allowed him actually to occupy a more elevated seat” (Hitzig, Thenius), is not a matter of importance. The kings that were with him in Babylon, are “those who, having been deprived, like Jehoiachin, of their kingdoms, were forced to enhance the triumph and glory of the court at Babylon, cf. Judges 1:7” (Hitzig). 2 Kings 25:29. And changed his prison-garments. Instead of the late Aramaic form ωִׁ ?πָּ ?ΰ we find in Jeremiah 52:33 ωִׁ ?πָּ ?δ. The subject is not Evilmerodach (Hitzig), but Jehoiachin, who is the subject of the following verb εְ ?ΰָ ?λַ ?μ. In ηַ ?ιָּ ?ιε the suffix can only refer to Jehoiachin and not to Evilmerodach. It would be a false inference, therefore, that Jehoiachin’s period of grace only lasted through Evilmerodach’s short reign. “Jehoiachin ate in person at the royal table, but he probably also received an allowance for the support of his little court, consisting of his servants and attendants” (Hitzig). Here again this text is abbreviated. In Jeremiah there follow after αְּ ?ιεֹ ?ξεֹ ?v the words: “until his death.” Here those words are omitted as unnecessary after: all the days of his life. The Sept. also have these words in this place. The fact that they omit them in Jeremiah 52:34 does not justify the assumption of Thenius that they were borrowed from 2 Kings 25:29, and are not original in that place. Hitzig very properly declares that they are “evidently genuine,” and adds: “In 2 Kings 25:11 ‘all the days of his life’ might well be omitted. Here, however, where he narrates something joyful, the author looks back once more, after fixing the term or limit, over the entire period of good fortune. Cf. 1 Kings 5:1; 1 Kings 15:5.” He wants to tell once more what good fortune Jehoiachin enjoyed until the end of his life, and how Evilmerodach at least had the intention of providing for him. This good fortune lasted until Jehoiachin’s death, whether he died before or after Evilmerodach. _____ Appendix.—After the words: So Judah was carried away out of their land, there follows, in Jeremiah 52:28-30, the following statement, which is omitted in the book of Kings: “This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive; in the seventh year three thousand Jews and three and twenty. In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar he carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty and two persons. In the three and twentieth year of Nebuchadrezzar, Nebuzar-adan, the captain of the guard, carried away captive of the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons. All the persons were four thousand and six hundred.” 2 Kings 25:22-26 is wanting in Jeremiah 52. because its statements had been given in detail in chaps, 40 and 41; the statements above quoted are inserted in Jeremiah 52. because they had not been given before, as they are in 2 Kings, in 2 Kings 24:14-16. The numbers given in Jeremiah vary very much from those in Kings. The former, however, are recommended, as Hitzig says, by their detail; they cannot have been invented. They are evidently derived from a different source, and the only question is, what relation does that source bear to the statements in the book of Kings? Of the three separate deportations mentioned, one took place in the seventh, and one in the eighteenth, year of Nebuchadnezzar. These can be no other than the one which took place according to 2 Kings 24:12, in the eighth, and the one which took place according to 2 Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. The eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar would be, as is expressly stated in Jeremiah 32:1, the tenth of Zedekiah, that is, the year in which Jerusalem was first besieged. There cannot have been any deportation in this year. Again, the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar would not be the year in which Jehoiachin reigned for three months, and in which it is said that he and ten thousand others were led into exile, but the last year of Jehoiakim. In this year there was no deportation. We are therefore compelled to assume, if we will not alter all the other chronological data in the book of Jeremiah itself, that the original document from which Jeremiah 52:28-30 is derived, reckons the reign of Nebuchadnezzar from another starting-point from that which is adopted in the book of Kings and elsewhere in Jeremiah. This may well be, inasmuch as the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign do not coincide exactly with those of the Jewish kings. The difference, however, only amounts to one year. The third deportation in the twenty-third year must, therefore, have taken place in the twenty-fourth year. It is not mentioned in Kings at all, but no doubt took place. In view of the continual disposition to revolt, it is very likely that he carried off more of the people in his twenty-third or twenty-fourth year, especially as he was at that time busy besieging Tyre. He intrusted this duty to the same officer who had had charge of the previous deportation. There is a much more serious difficulty in regard to the number of the exiles. According to Jeremiah 52:28 there were only 3,023 in the first deportation; according to 2 Kings 24:14 there were 10,000. Josephus says there were 10,832. Evidently he has joined the 10,000 in Kings, for the first deportation, with the 832 in Jeremiah for the second (Antiq. x. 7, 1). Thenius suggests that the sign for ten (yod) may have resembled the sign for three (gimel) in the original document from which these statements are derived, and so 3,023 took the place of 10,023. This last would then be the accurate number for which 10,000 is the round number. But the sum given at the end, 4,600, supports 3,023 in this place, and this testimony cannot be put aside by the critical decree that: “The summation at the end was interpolated by the redactor.” According to Ewald, “ςωׂ ?ψδ has fallen out after ωׁ ?ας in 2 Kings 25:28 just as certainly as it has fallen out after ωξεπδ in the statement of Jehoiachin’s life in 2 Chronicles 36:9.” According to this we should have to take it as referring, not to the deportation mentioned in 2 Kings 24:14, but to the later one under Zedekiah. The seventeenth of Nebuchadnezzar was the 9th of Zedekiah, and in that year Nebuchadnezzar advanced against Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:1). He took the city in Zedekiah’s eleventh year (2 Kings 25:2), and before that no deportation can have taken place. The discrepancy between 10,000 and 3,023 can hardly be accounted for otherwise than by the explanation of Estius. In 2 Kings 25:28 the 3,023 are expressly mentioned as “Jews,” that is, persons who belonged to the tribe of Judah. The 10,000 included persons not of that tribe, Benjamites and others who had joined themselves to Judah, since it alone represented the Israelitish nationality, and who made common cause with it against the Chaldeans. There may well have been 7,000 of these, and the entire number in the first captivity, including the 3,023 “Jews,” was thus 10,000. It is evident that the statements in Jeremiah 52:28-30 are meant to apply only to the persons of the tribe of Judah (see ιְ ?δεּ ?γָ ?δ 2 Kings 25:27), and not to all who were carried away captive. This opinion is also favored by the number 4,600 as the sum of the exiles, for this number would be far too small for the sum of all the persons carried into captivity. [There can be no doubt that Jeremiah 52:28-30 refers to the Jews who were taken captive. What reason have we for supposing that 2 Kings 24:14 refers to or includes any others than Jews? There is none. It is only an invention for the sake of harmonizing the two passages. Then the probabilities are against it. The persons carried away were chosen on account of their rank, position, and influence. We have an instance in Jaazaniah of Maacha (2 Kings 25:25 see Exeget. notes on that verse) that others than men of Judah held power and rank. Shebna the scribe (Isaiah 22:15) is another instance to prove that in the time before the captivity pure Israelitish, much more pure Jewish blood, was not necessary to hold high office in Jerusalem. The persons of the highest rank were the ones taken away—as such—whether Jews or not. Non-Jews were, of course, rare exceptions. Of the common people large numbers were spared. Naturally people of Judah, who were most deeply interested in the fate of Jerusalem, would be taken first, together with such of other tribes or nationalities as were dangerous from their rank and influence and ability. It is, therefore, improbable that many non-Jews of the common people were carried away. It amounts to a certainty that the exiles were not composed of non-Jews in the ratio of 7,000 to 3,000. This explanation must, therefore, be abandoned. It is the only true policy, in this and in similar cases, to take note of the discrepancy as a fact, and to abandon the attempt at forced and strained explanations. Between the two accounts, that in Jeremiah deserves the preference as the more specific, and also as the more moderate statement. The larger number and the round number is suspicious.—W. G. S.] Only 832 were taken away in the second deportation, because there were only so many left of the more influential people. The 745 who were taken away at the third deportation were not inhabitants of Jerusalem but ιְ ?δεּ ?γִ ?ιν (2 Kings 25:30). The smallness of this number is due to the fact that most of the Jews, properly speaking, had been taken away before. [The numbers certainly are astonishingly small in one point of view, though in another we are not surprised that they are no larger. Taking the number of Israelites who entered Palestine at the lowest estimate, and noticing the numbers which formed the armies, or were engaged in battle at various times, as well as the pictures of society which are given, especially by Isaiah and the other older prophets, we get the impression that there was a very large population in Palestine before the Assyrian Empire began to press upon the North. On the other hand, when we consider the great difficulty of leading a large mass of people, with the aged, the women, and the children, on a long journey through a rough country, we can hardly conceive it possible that the conquerors should have taken away an entire population. The Assyrians, however, blotted out the kingdom of the ten tribes. The whole picture which is presented to us gives the impression that the land was depopulated and left desert. The wild beasts took possession of it. Not enough remained to continue the ancient traditions and worship there. It was found necessary to begin almost de novo in the population and cultivation of the country. So too in Judah. The pictures presented by the prophets and in the Psalms, as well as by the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, are those of a depopulated and desert country. Such numbers were taken away that some had to be left on purpose to cultivate the land. When the exiles came back they had to re-found the nation. Now we hear that there were only 4,600 exiles in all, or, at most, 10,000. This seems reasonable in view of the difficulty of transportation, but it is difficult to see how it accounts for the destruction of the nation. Two suggestions present themselves: in the first place, the last 150 years, with their internal dissensions, their reformations and revolutions, their counter-reformations and counter-revolutions, as well as their foreign wars, may have greatly reduced the population. In the second place, in a nation such as Judah was, the centre of gravity of the nationality was, no doubt, in the upper and better classes. The poor and uneducated and humble were probably very dependent upon the more fortunate classes. One proof of it is the fact that the prophets and psalmists were continually rebuking the arrogance of the latter towards the former. The Babylonian king’s policy of carrying off the “chief men” may, therefore, have been radical and all sufficient for rooting out the nationality.—W. G. S.] Those who were carried away last were probably those who had formerly been considered harmless, but whom it was found, upon experience, inexpedient to trust. However the numbers may be explained, it is certain from Jeremiah 52:28-30 that there were only three deportations, and not six, as Usher and the Calw. Bib. assume, viz., the first in the seventh of Jehoiakim (Daniel 1:1; Daniel 1:3 (?)), the second in the seventh of Nebuchadnezzar, the third under Jehoiachin, the fourth in the eighteenth, the fifth in the nineteenth, and the sixth in the twenty-fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar. Later scholars have reduced these to four: the first under Jehoiakim, the second under Jehoiachin, the third under Zedekiah, and the fourth some years after the destruction of Jerusalem. But this is not correct, for there is no hint of any deportation under Jehoiakim either in Kings or Chronicles or Jeremiah. So much only may be accepted, that Daniel was sent to Babylon as a hostage when Jehoiakim became a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:1). Perhaps, also, at that time Jehoiakim gave some of the temple utensils to the enemy to pacify him (2 Chronicles 36:6-7). AND ETHICAL1. The destruction of Jerusalem did not take place immediately after the fall of the city, but one month later. It is clearly designated in the record as a later and independent event. Nebuzar-adan who “stood before the king of Babylon” (Jeremiah 52:12), who, that is, attended his orders, came to Jerusalem, by the express command of the king, not to take the city, which had not yet been captured (as Thenius thinks), but, as 2 Kings 25:9 distinctly shows, in order to destroy the captured city. The destruction of the city was intended and distinctly commanded by Nebuchadnezzar. It was the punishment which the king had decreed and which Nebuzar-adan was to execute. He went methodically to work. First of all he caused the temple to be burned, then the royal palace, then the houses of the great men, then he tore down the walls, and finally he took the inhabitants away. In 2 Kings 25:13-17 the account returns to the temple and enumerates its decorations and furniture, which were destroyed or carried off. The utter destruction of the temple cannot have been insisted on, on account of the value of the objects it contained, for these were not of gold, like the ones which had formerly been carried away (2 Kings 24:13). The only ground for it was that the temple had especial significance, as the dwelling of the one God in the midst of His chosen people. Both politically and religiously it was the centre of the State, the basis and the bond of the national unity. It was the building of chief importance, and was, therefore, to be destroyed first and utterly. The temple worship had become, under the four last kings, a mere external ceremonial. Even the priests made of it a mere hypocritical show, so that Jeremiah cried out: “Trust ye not in lying words, saying. The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these” (Jeremiah 7:4). Then he commanded them to repent and amend. They did not, however, and so the externals in which they trusted were taken from them. The destruction of the temple was the seal of God’s truth impressed upon the words of the prophets, in which the people had not believed (Jeremiah 27:19-22). The two brazen columns are mentioned first and chiefly in the description of the glories of the temple. (They are described with more detail in Jeremiah than in Kings.) The cause of this is, as we saw in the Exeg. note on 1 Kings 7:21 and Hist. § 5 on 1 Kings 7:1-51, that these columns represented the foundation and the strength of the temple, and were, therefore, in a certain measure, representatives of Jehovah. The destruction and removal of these showed, more than any other event, that the house of Jehovah, as the physical centre of the theocracy, had come to an end. The ark of the covenant is not mentioned in either account. It seems to have been removed from the temple before its destruction. It had been removed under Manasseh or Amon, for Josiah commanded the levites to bring it back into the temple (2 Chronicles 35:3). We may suppose that it was removed again under one of the following kings, perhaps under Jehoiakim. What became of it we cannot tell. The inference from Jeremiah 3:16 that it was no longer in existence in the time of Jeremiah (Hitzig) is not justified. Some suppose, as Carpzov does (Apparat. Crit. p. 298), that it was among the articles which Nebuchadnezzar caused to be either destroyed or carried off in the time of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:13; 2 Chronicles 36:10). The story of the rabbis that Josiah had caused it to be hidden in a subterranean chamber, and that Jeremiah commanded those who fled to Egypt (2 Kings 25:26) to take it with them, and that they hid it in a cleft of the mountain on which Moses had once been (2Ma 2:5. Cf. Buxtorf, De arc f�d., cap. 22. Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 203), sounds very wild. 2. The fall of the kingdom of Judah was, according to the distinct statement of the Scriptures, the divine judgment which had long been threatened by the prophets (Isaiah 39:6-7; 2 Kings 21:10-15; Jeremiah 19:3-13). It fell when all Jehovah’s attempts to recall the chosen people to their allegiance had failed, and the apostasy from Him and from His law had reached the utmost limit. Sun and Moon, Baal and the Queen of Heaven, Adonis and Astarte, all the host of heaven were worshipped, and children were sacrificed to Moloch in the valley of Hinnom. Idols stood even in the House of Jehovah; idol-altars stood in the streets. On the hills, on the roofs, in the groves, incense was offered to idols. There was no abomination of idolatry which was not practised. All that remained of the Jehovah worship was external ceremonial, and priests and prophets uttered lies (Jeremiah 7:17-18; Jeremiah 7:30-32; Jeremiah 8:2; Jeremiah 11:12-13; Jeremiah 17:2; Jeremiah 19:4-5; Jeremiah 19:13; Jeremiah 32:29; Jeremiah 32:34-35; Ezekiel 8:3; Ezekiel 8:9-10; Ezekiel 8:14; Ezekiel 23:38-39, &c.). Moral corruption kept pace with this religious apostasy: “Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; and come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say: We are delivered to do all these abominations?” [Lit. we are concealed to do, &c., i.e., we have impunity] (Jeremiah 7:9-10). Avarice, love of gain, and cheating (Jeremiah 6:13), licentiousness and whoredom (Jeremiah 5:8-9), injustice and violence (Jeremiah 6:6), shedding innocent blood (Jeremiah 2:34; Jeremiah 7:6), overriding justice and right (Jeremiah 7:6), falsehood and hypocrisy (Jeremiah 8:9-10), bigotry and obstinacy (Jeremiah 7:24-26), infidelity and perjury (Jeremiah 9:2-3; Jeremiah 9:7), in short, all sins and vices were prevalent, especially among the rich and great. “Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, and that seeketh the truth, and I will pardon it” (Jeremiah 5:1; cf. 2 Chronicles 36:14-16). So the measure had become full. Judah had fallen lower than Israel, therefore the Lord cast it away from before His face as He had cast away Israel (2 Kings 17:20; 2 Kings 24:20). As there the king of Assyria, so here the king of Babylon was the instrument of the divine judgment, “the rod of his anger,” which, after it had served His purpose, He broke and cast into the fire (Jeremiah 1:17-18; cf. Isaiah 10:5). This punishment, however, was not the annihilation of the chosen people, but the sole radical cure for it. The Lord keeps His promises even while He chastises and punishes. The only means by which the chosen people could preserve and fulfil its destiny in human history, to bring the knowledge of God and salvation to all nations, was by the downfall of the visible kingdom, the earthly theocracy. The downfall of the visible kingdom was a step in the divine economy of salvation, and it marked progress towards the true kingdom of God. The people needed to be convinced of the nothingness of the visible kingdom, and to have its attention directed to the new, spiritual, true, and eternal kingdom. This was the aim of the divine judgment, to awaken an appreciation of this kingdom and a longing for it, and this aim was reached in the end. The idea of the messianic kingdom which the prophets had brought forward long before the downfall of the visible kingdom, but which had fallen uncomprehended, now took firm root. Hasse well says (Gesch. des A. B. s. 136): “It belonged to the consummation of the history of Israel that Judah also should perish. It had long ago made this necessary by its backsliding after every momentary reformation, and by its obstinate resistance to every call of grace; but the power of the Davidic element to recover from corruption had thus far saved it. This power exhausted its last energies in Josiah, and, after his death, the kingdom sank rapidly into ruins. As the old passed away, the prophets were obliged to turn and give expression to what they perceived as something new and future. A sharp division separated this new from the old. On the one hand, the judgment and penalty were recognized as a penalty of death. On the other hand arose the figure of the new life, and it was transfigured into a lofty ideal.” Lisco (Das A. T. I. s. 538) gives a similar conception: “The breach which was made by the separation of the kingdom was never healed. On the contrary, its evil effects lasted on until the downfall, first of Ephraim and then of Judah. In the measure in which the political confusion and decay increased, and the impending calamity approached, in the same measure the prophetic word grew loud and clear, and, when the blow fell which destroyed the Jewish nation, Jeremiah arose upon the ruins of Jerusalem, Daniel appeared as a prophet to speak in the name of his people before the king of Babylon, and Ezekiel watched over the scattered remnants of the nation who were in exile on the Chaboras. The civil power was dead; the prophetical power survived its death.” The fall of Jerusalem forms the most important crisis in the history of the ancient people of God. It was not an event between two nations; it was an event in the history of the world. Many a great nation fell both before and after, but the fall of none of them had anything like the significance for the history of the world which that of Judah had. It is an event which is as unique in history as the Jewish people was unique among nations, for “Salvation cometh of the Jews” (John 4:22). By its fall Judah became the keeper and bearer of salvation for all the world (cf. Jeremiah 30-33). 3. The deportation of conquered peoples from their country was the ordinary policy of the ancient Asiatic conquerors, in order that the nationality might thus be obliterated (see Exeg. on 1 Kings 8:46 sq.). In this case, however, the effect was, on the contrary, in the providence of God, to preserve the conquered people in all their peculiarity of character and calling and destiny. Herein consists the great difference between the downfall of Samaria and that of Judah, as we saw above (2 Kings 17 Hist. § 3); whereas the exile of the people of the ten tribes in Assyria served to annihilate their nationality, and they sank lower and lower until they disappeared from history, the exile of the people of Judah in Babylon served only to strengthen and purify them, so that they far out-lived the world-monarchy which had conquered them. Nothing could show more clearly the indestructibility of the chosen people than this fact, that the event which should have destroyed them only served to purify and strengthen them. The distress of the captivity brought them to their senses, and made them see their own sinfulness. They repented, and turned to Jehovah and to His Law with a sincerity which they had never before felt. The exile awakened in them a deep longing for the promised land, for the city in which Jehovah had placed His name (2 Kings 21:7), for the temple which was the pledge of the selection of Israel to be the chosen people, and the centre of its nationality. This is expressed in Psalms 137, 126. It was a dispensation of Divine Providence that the king of Babylon did not do as the king of Assyria had done in Samaria—bring heathen colonists to settle in the land of Judah after its population was taken away. If he had done so a mixed population would have grown up there and the land would have become the home of many diverse religions and forms of worship (2 Kings 17:24-33; cf. 2 Kings 17. Hist. §§ 4 and 5). Judah maintained its purity of religion and nationality both in captivity and in the home country. The exiles retained their national constitution (Ezekiel 14:1; Ezekiel 20:1; Sus. 5:28). According to the Talmud (Gem. Makkoth i. 1; Sanhedr. i. 12, 21) they were put under a ψֹ ?ΰωׁ δַ ?βְּ ?μεּ ?ϊ [Governor of the captivity, i.e., of the captives] of their own nation. The practice of their religion was also allowed them, but they could not offer sacrifices, because they lacked the one central sanctuary at which alone sacrifice might be offered. This only increased their longing to erect the sanctuary once more, and this longing endured until the time of chastisement was at an end (Jeremiah 25:12; Jeremiah 29:10). When they returned their first care was to rebuild the sanctuary (Ezekiel 1:3; Ezekiel 6:3). 4. The two brief narratives by which the author closes his work are not mere appendages to the history, but the proper epilogue to the words: “So Judah was carried away out of their land.” They are parallel, in a certain manner, to the review which the author gives in 2 Kings 17:7 sq. of the history of Israel. The first of these incidents shows us how deep was the corruption which had pervaded the kingdom, and how hopelessly depraved the monarchical constitution had become. It was not possible any longer to have even a deputy-king under Babylonian sovereignty. Gedaliah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had left as governor, was put to death after a few months in spite of his oath (2 Kings 25:24), and the murderer, Ishmael, who desired to make himself king, was obliged to flee with his followers into the territory of the Ammonites. Others fled, for fear of the vengeance of the Chaldeans, into Egypt. Every attempt to unite the scattered remnants, and to set up at least the shadow of a monarchy, failed. Judah could not any longer stand any kind of a monarchy. It was incapable of sustaining an independent existence under an independent dynasty. The inauguration of such a government only served to produce greater confusion and disorder. The events which followed the destruction of Jerusalem only showed how necessary the divine chastisement had become. This is what the author desires to show by the first incident which he relates. However, he could not and would not close his work, which was written primarily for those who, like himself, were living in exile, with such a sad and hopeless incident. He therefore adds the story of the deliverance of Jehoiachin from his prison after thirty seven years of captivity. He thereby offers to the people who sat weeping “by the waters of Babylon,” and thinking of Jerusalem, a prospect into a more hopeful future. The release of Jehoiachin “was the first ray of light in the long night of the captivity … and was a guarantee to the people that the Lord would keep His promise, and would not withdraw his grace from the house of David forever” (Keil). It gave the captive people hope that the hour of their deliverance also would come. The author could not have given a more appropriate close to his work, in which he had shown God’s plan of grace and redemption in the history of the chosen people. 5. In conclusion, we must notice the manner in which the latest modern historians conceive of, and represent, the fall of Judah. “There had been,” says Duncker (Gesch. des Alt. I. s. 542), “no increase in power since the time of Hezekiah. There was no better guarantee for the existence of a small State than there had been at that time. If Egypt went on, as it had begun under Psammetichus, making conquests in Asia, and if a new great power arose to inherit and increase the might which Assyria had once possessed, the existence of Judah would once more be threatened as seriously as it was in the time of Hezekiah (s. 552): The effort of the nation to regain its independent existence, the stiffnecked resistance with which the Jews were ready to fight for their fatherland, and to break the yoke of the foreigner, were as well justified as was the abstract religious policy of Jeremiah. Who can blame those who hold the duty of sacrificing one’s life for one’s country, even under the most hopeless circumstances, higher than the counsel to submit at discretion? Who can blame those who regarded Jeremiah’s conduct and policy as ruinous, who demanded that Jeremiah should stand on the side of his own nation against the foreign foe, and who stigmatized his discourses as treason? … (s. 553): He (Jeremiah) is bitter and violent enough to call down bloody destruction upon his [personal] enemies (Jeremiah 15:5).… (s. 556): However much Jeremiah’s assertions were calculated to discourage the king and people, they did not have that effect. It was natural that Jeremiah should seem to the people to be a cowardly traitor.… (s. 557): Jeremiah’s persistence in advising submission, under the circumstances, finally so far outraged the chief men that they demanded his life of the king … (s. 544): The prophet went so far in his opposition to Jehoiakim that he finally brought his own life into danger. At the same time he irritated the people against himself by his persistent prophecies of the coming fall of Jerusalem.… He was no less severe against the people for the wickedness of their conduct, and for their practice of some remains of foreign usages which had not been eradicated by the (new) Law-book.” It is hardly necessary to say that this view is diametrically opposed to that of the Bible, and yet the biblical documents are the only authority for the history. In the text the grounds of the national downfall are stated to be the apostasy of the nation in religion, its corruption in morals, and the unfaithfulness, tyranny, and depravity of its king. The downfall is represented as a divine judgment upon the nation in punishment for all this. Duncker, however, ignores this view. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/