Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 22:8

And 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.

8 20. Hilkiah the high priest finds the book of the Law. Effect of the discovery on Josiah. The words of Huldah the prophetess (2Ch 34:14-28)

8. I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord ] Much discussion has arisen about the discovery which this verse records. Before entering on the question of what it was which Hilkiah found, it may be well to notice briefly the circumstances of the time. Josiah had succeeded his father at the age of eight, and in the previous fifty-seven years the kingdom had twice over been deluged with all the abominations of idolatry. The greater proportion therefore of the inhabitants of Jerusalem would have had little chance of knowing the law and its requirements. The temple had been neglected, perhaps closed, during a large part of these years. If we may judge of what would be needed now by what had been found necessary in Hezekiah’s time (2Ch 29:5-7) the holy place would have become foul with neglect, the doors shut up, the lamps unlit, no incense within, no sacrifices without the building. As for the book of the Law, whatever might have been its contents at this time, rolls containing it would certainly not be numerous. In the possession of the priests they might be expected to be found, but only here and there. The copy made (according to the Law) for the use of the king would most certainly have perished. We must lay aside, in thinking of this time, all our modern conceptions about books and about a number of copies. The priests, in the matter of services and sacrifices in the temple, taught the people by word of mouth what was proper in every part of the ceremonial, and much of the priestly training was traditional, passed on from one generation of priests to another. That an authoritative copy of the Law, whatever it may have comprised, would be supplied for preservation in the temple we certainly might expect, but after nearly sixty years of neglect of the temple and its services we can feel little surprise that neither Hilkiah nor his fellows were aware of its existence, and that Josiah knew concerning it only what had been taught him by the priests. The half-century previous to Josiah’s accession had been a period of utter darkness both for people, priests and king.

Hilkiah gave [R.V. delivered ] the book to Shaphan ] The same verb is rendered ‘deliver’ in verses 9 and 10 just following. The scribe Shaphan was the person to whom such a discovered roll would naturally be brought. Neither Hilkiah nor Shaphan are surprised at what has been found. The high priest describes it to Shaphan by a form of words which must have had a definite meaning before he used them. That is, there was known among the priests, and to some degree no doubt among the people, a collection of precepts which were called by the name of ‘the book of the Law’. Therefore the finding mentioned in this verse was not a discovery of something unknown before, but the rescuing of the temple-copy of the Law from the hiding-place in which it had long lain (perhaps in one of the chambers round about the temple). Hilkiah knows what it is which he has come upon, the scribe with professional instinct begins to peruse it. Neither of them shews any ignorance or any surprise at the sight or perusal.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Some have concluded from this discovery, either that no book of the law had ever existed before, the work now said to have been found having been forged for the occasion by Hilkiah; or that all knowledge of the old book had been lost, and that a work of unknown date and authorship having been at this time found was accepted as the Law of Moses on account of its contents, and has thus come down to us under his name. But this is to see in the narrative far more than it naturally implies. If Hilkiah had been bold enough and wicked enough to forge, or if he had been foolish enough to accept hastily as the real book of the law a composition of which he really knew nothing, there were four means of detecting his error or his fraud:

(1) The Jewish Liturgies, which embodied large portions of the Law;

(2) The memory of living men, which in many instances may have extended to the entire five books, as it does now with the modern Samaritans;

(3) Other copies, entire or fragmentary, existing among the more learned Jews, or in the Schools of the prophets; and

(4) Quotations from the Law in other works, especially in the Psalmists and prophets, who refer to it on almost every page.

The copy of the Book of the Law found by Hilkiah was no doubt that deposited, in accordance with the command of God, by Moses, by the side of the ark of the covenant, and kept ordinarily in the holy of holies (marginal reference). It had been lost, or secreted, during the desecration of the temple by Manasseh, but had not been removed out of the temple building.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

2Ki 22:8

I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord.

The finding of the book

Following two of the most notoriously wicked rulers, Josiah, the boy king of Judah, was a remarkable instance of independence of character and the differentiating influence of the grace of God. His individuality made a deep and lasting impress upon the history of the nation. One of the chief tasks he set himself was the repair of the temple–not done since the time of Joash, two hundred and fifty years before. It was during the progress of this work that the Book of the Law was discovered, a circumstance which was so powerfully to affect the action of the king and the future of his people.

I. The finding of the book constituted in itself a literary resurrection of the most remarkable description. There has been no lack of dogmatic opinions as to what the book was which was thus found. In the passages referred to above it is simply styled a book and the book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses; language perfectly consistent with the theory that it was the survivor of several, it may be many, previously existing copies but one doughty champion of the Reformation does not hesitate to identify it with the copy of the law that was preserved in the Ark of the Covenant, and others, as, for instance, the Fathers, and Wellhausen and his Scottish disciple, Robertson Smith, hold that it was none other than the Book of Deuteronomy. How significant the circumstances of this discovery! Are we to pronounce it a happy accident? or to refer it to some Intelligent Cause? We can recall similar incidents in the history of non-religious or (so-called) profane literature. The Nicomachean Ethics are said to have lain in the cellars of Scepsis, the king of Pergamos, for nearly two centuries after Aristotle had ceased to teach, when, rediscovered by men who loved philosophy, they were conveyed to Athens and then to Rome in the days of Cicero. Their publication stirred afresh the dormant spirit of the schools, and broke like a new morning upon the intellectual life of Europe. I have read, too, an even more romantic tale concerning a book of modern poetry familiar to most of us. Its author had occasionally quoted stanzas in the hearing of his friends, which he said belonged to poems he once had written, but never intended to publish. At last they prevailed upon him to divulge their secret. Years before he had lost the wife of-his youth, in whose praise they had been written, and he had vowed that they should be buried with her. Searching in her coffin they found the MS. pillowing her head, the golden tresses of which were so intertwined with its leaves that it was with the greatest difficulty they were separated and restored to a condition that admitted of their being printed. Instances of a similar character might be multiplied, and it may be asserted that the problem is essentially the same in any case; that the intrinsic character of the writings can have no bearing upon the interpretation to be put upon their rescue from oblivion. But surely the respective circumstances must be taken into account, and the relation of the writings to the spiritual life of mankind? The loss of the Ethics would have been a great loss, in some respects an irretrievable one; and had Rosettis House of Life still lain beneath the cerements of the tomb, English literature to-day would have been distinctly poorer, and the development of our poetry less perfect than it has been. But who will say that such works as these are essential to the higher life, the spiritual progress of humanity? Apart from its own solemn claim to immortality, the Word of the Lord is too closely and causatively associated with the future of the race, and it has outlived too many antagonistic influences, too many ages of unbelief and indifference, for us to conclude hastily that its presence amongst us now is but a lucky survival, to be accounted for by a theory of chances.

II. The discovery was connected with a great awakening of religious life. The story of its reception by the young king and his subjects, simply as it is told, thrills us as we read it. The great high-priestly penitence of the one for the general sin and the heroic resolution of the others as they stood by the covenant have in them not a little of the moral sublime. But we must not fail to lay to heart the enduring lessons it teaches us.

1. Look at the light which it throws upon the question of a book-religion. The history of that age illustrated the difference there is between being with a Bible and being without one. Of course it is allowed that the sense the expression book-religion often bears is false and mischievous enough. When Chillingworth shouted that the Bible, and the Bible alone, was the religion of Protestants, he probably attached a very different signification to religion than the term generally conveys; if he did not his error was not much less than that which he sought to overturn. Religion is of the heart–an inward and spiritual influence–a communion with God. But it is not independent of external standards, nor does it spring into existence unprovoked or unassisted. This, at any rate, is the teaching of history and of individual experience. Without the authoritative medium of Scripture Judah failed to advance upon the religion of the Fathers, in fact, fell further and further behind it. The beliefs of the people wanted fixity; their pious emotions were without definiteness or moral force; and they became a prey to the plausible falsehoods of heathenism. With the reappearance of the Book of the Law the religious spirit of the nation recovered itself, and the forward movement towards the great fulfilment was resumed. But it would be a mistake to suppose that a truth, even an important truth, is as such immortal. As John Stuart Mill has remarked, there are too many instances to the contrary for us to entertain such a comfortable belief. Not once only, but many times, have great religious or moral movements perished untimely for lack of a Scripture that could give their principles authoritative expression and permanence. On the other hand, the book-religions of the world have been the only persistent or widely influential ones, as witness the faiths of China, India, Persia, or Palestine. Once fixed in literary form, the creed of a people is open to general reference, becomes a public standard of opinion and of conduct, and in conjunction with the spiritual experience to which it is related, it of necessity advances and refines upon itself. In Fetichism alone have we a religion (if religion it can be called) without a book, which at the same time continues and reproduces itself! Proteus, like it springs up, a rank but stunted growth of diseased imaginations, wild vagaries, and sexual excesses. Yes, in the superstition that haunts the dark places of the earth, that either opposes morality or lies wholly outside of it, and that brands with such unmistakable inferiority its devotees, we have, par excellence, the religion without a book!

2. How independent Divine revelation is of the moral and intellectual conditions amidst which it appears. It is impossible for any candid inquirer to suppose that the dust-covered MS. so seasonably brought forth from its age-long rest was the product of forgery. Apart from the transparent self-contradiction of such a conception, there was no man of that day who could have achieved such a tour de force in literature or morals. How is the problem to be explained, that in an epoch of decadence and apostasy, there should have appeared at once so marvellous a transformation in public and private conduct? Evolution, however it may be manipulated, cannot solve the difficulty. Revelation, that glorious anticipation of reason, as Lessing conceived it to be, was in that instance, at any rate, no child of the Zeit-geist. The truth that could so regenerate a people must have had its origin in the supernatural and Divine.

3. Vital contact with Holy Scripture is essential to the enjoyment of its advantages. So commonplace are our notions of Gods ways that we are startled at the thought of His permitting such an utter and appalling ignorance of Divine things. It is a great mystery; yet we can see certain disciplinary reasons for it. To have a Bible is of little use if we do not read it; to read it, if it be not laid to heart. Of how many might it still be said, The word of hearing did not profit them, because they were not united by faith with them that heard. Only when in penitence and faith we read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the teachings of the Bible, can it become a means of grace, a source of spiritual life and power. (A. F. Muir, M. A.)

The book that finds me

The striking fact in the incident is the reversal of the statement, is the deeper truth: the book found them. This stamped it as Divine. This is always the great fact concerning the Bible–it finds me.

I. In my deepest thought–to know God. The questions of sin and destiny and immortality, &c. The greatest minds have here found the answer. The ordinary man can know for himself. Every man can know for himself whether the Bible is the revelation of God. Give it his best thought.

II. In my deepest desire–to serve God, to do His will. If any man wills to do my will he shall know truth–must be lived to be realised. It costs something to live it. Obedience is the pathway to knowledge.

III. In my deepest need–to have God–my God–my Father. His love and mercy and care. Experience is the great teacher. Sorrows test. So personal–every line for each man. Reality of promises. (C. Meyers, D. D.)

Preservation of the Word of God

Wondrously has the Spirit of God watched over and preserved the Scriptures. The original copy of Magna Charta, on which hung all the greatest liberties of the British people, was once nearly destroyed. Sir Richard Cotton was in a tailors shop, and the great scissors were opened to cut it in pieces. The man into whose hands it had fallen knew nothing either of its nature or value. But it was rescued and remains to-day in the nations keeping as the priceless charter of its liberty. The Bible is the charter of the souls freedom, and many and many a time its enemies have sought to exterminate it, but God has watched over it, preserved it by many a miracle, and to-day it is declaring liberty to spiritual captives all over the world. (H. O. Mackey.)

The reviving word

John Stuart Mill tells how that at one time he had lost all interest in life, every blossom of joy and hope withered, but the charm and thrill of life were restored to him by the reading of Wordsworths poems. The gifted singer revived the weary, despondent philosopher. How much more shall the words of God which are spirit and life revive and gladden our souls! (Helps for Speakers.)

Discovery of truth

To take an old diamond out of the casket in which it has lain forgotten, is as good as to find a new diamond. So with truth. To strike mens eyes with an old maxim, is as good as to think out a fresh one–nay, better; for the best truths are old. (Charles Buxton.)

Preservation of the Book

Just as Dr. Judson had finished translating the New Testament into Burmese he was cast into prison. His wife took the precious manuscript and buried it in the ground. But if left there it would soon decay, while to reveal its existence to its foes would surely lead to its destruction. So it was arranged that she should put it within a roll of cotton and bring it to him in the form of a pillow, so hard and poor that even the keeper of the prison did not discover it. After seven months this pillow, so uninviting externally, so precious to him, was taken away, and then his wife redeemed it by giving a better one in exchange. Some time after that he was hurried off to another prison, leaving everything behind him, and his old pillow was thrown into the prison yard, to be trodden underfoot as worthless cotton; but after a few hours one of the native Christians discovered the roll and took it home as a relic of the prisoner, and there, long afterwards, the manuscript was found within the cotton, complete and uninjured. Surely the hand of the Lord was interposed to save from destruction the fruit of years of toil, so important for those who were to read the Burmese Bible.

Chance literature

Many of the greatest discoveries in the era of the revival of learning were characterised by the merest chance. Ciceros important treatise, De Republica, was discovered concealed beneath some monastic writing. Part of Livy was found between the leaves of a Bible, and a missing page in a battledore. Quintilian was picked out of an old coffer full of rubbish. The one copy of Tacitus which survived the general destruction of Roman libraries was found in a Westphalian monastery. An original Magna Charts, with all its seals and signatures was found by Cotton about to be cut up by a tailor into measures. Thurloes State papers fell out of a ceiling in Lincolns Inn. Many of Lady Montagues letters were discovered by Disraeli in the office of an attorney, where they might have remained till this day but for the chance visit of the great bibliophile. And undoubtedly many hundreds of rare books and manuscripts and papers lie hidden away in the presses and cupboards of old manor houses, whence gradually they may be dragged into the light of day, to be destroyed, or to awaken universal interest.

Finding the Sinaitic manuscript

Dr. Tischendorf describes as follows the finding of the remarkable manuscript on Mount Sinai: On the afternoon of the 4th February 1859, I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had we entered the room, when he said: And I, too, have read a Septuagint–that is, a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which fifteen years before I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas, and a part of the Pastor of Hermas. Full of joy which this time I had the self-command to conceal from the steward, I asked, as if in a careless way, for permission to taker the manuscript into my sleeping-chamber, to look over it more at leisure. There by myself I could give way to the transport of joy which I felt. I knew that I held in my hand the most precious Biblical treasure in existence, a document whose age and importance exceeded that of all the manuscripts which I had ever examined during twenty years study of the subject. I cannot now, I confess, recall all the emotions which I felt in that exciting moment with such a diamond in my possession. Though my lamp was dim, and the night was cold, I sat down at once to transcribe the Epistle of Barnabas.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 8. I have found the book of the law] Was this the autograph of Moses? It is very probable that it was, for in the parallel place; 2Ch 34:14, it is said to be the book of the law of the Lord by Moses. It is supposed to be that part of Deuteronomy (xxviii., xxix., xxx., and xxxi.), which contains the renewing of the covenant in the plains of Moab, and which contains the most terrible invectives against the corrupters of God’s word and worship.

The rabbins say that Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon endeavored to destroy all the copies of the law, and this only was saved by having been buried under a paving-stone. It is scarcely reasonable to suppose that this was the only copy of the law that was found in Judea; for even if we grant that Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon had endeavored to destroy all the books of the law, yet they could not have succeeded so as to destroy the whole. Besides, Manasseh endeavoured after his conversion to restore every part of the Divine worship, and in this he could have done nothing without the Pentateuch; and the succeeding reign of Amon was too short to give him opportunity to undo every thing that his penitent father had reformed. Add to all these considerations, that in the time of Jehoshaphat teaching from the law was universal in the land, for he set on foot an itinerant ministry, in order to instruct the people fully: for “he sent to his princes to teach in the cities of Judah; and with them he sent Levites and priests; and they went about through all the cities of Judah, and taught the people, having the book of the Lord with them;” see 2Ch 17:7-9. And if there be any thing wanting to show the improbability of the thing, it must be this, that the transactions mentioned here took place in the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah, who had, from the time he came to the throne, employed himself in the restoration of the pure worship of God; and it is not likely that during these eighteen years he was without a copy of the Pentateuch. The simple fact seems to be this, that this was the original of the covenant renewed by Moses with the people in the plains of Moab, and which he ordered to be laid up beside the ark; (De 31:26😉 and now being unexpectedly found, its antiquity, the occasion of its being made, the present circumstances of the people, the imperfect state in which the reformation was as yet, after all that had been done, would all concur to produce the effect here mentioned on the mind of the pious Josiah.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The book of the law; that original

book of the law of the Lord, given or written by the hand of Moses, as it is expressed, 2Ch 34:14, which by Gods command was put beside the ark, Deu 31:26, and probably taken from thence and hid, by the care of some godly priest, when some of the idolatrous kings of Judah persecuted the true religion, and defaced the temple, and (which the Jewish writers affirm) burnt all the copies of Gods law which they could find, and now found among the rubbish, or in some secret place.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

8-11. Hilkiah said . . . I havefound the book of the law in the house of the Lord, c.that is,the law of Moses, the Pentateuch. It was the temple copy which, hadbeen laid (Deu 31:25 Deu 31:26)beside the ark in the most holy place. During the ungodly reigns ofManasseh and Amonor perhaps under Ahaz, when the temple itself hadbeen profaned by idols, and the ark also (2Ch35:3) removed from its site; it was somehow lost, and was nowfound again during the repair of the temple [KEIL].Delivered by Hilkiah the discoverer to Shaphan the scribe [2Ki22:8], it was by the latter shown and read to the king. It isthought, with great probability, that the passage read to the king,and by which the royal mind was so greatly excited, was a portion ofDeuteronomy, the twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, and thirtieth chapters,in which is recorded a renewal of the national covenant, and anenumeration of the terrible threats and curses denounced against allwho violated the law, whether prince or people. The impressions ofgrief and terror which the reading produced on the mind of Josiahhave seemed to many unaccountable. But, as it is certain from theextensive and familiar knowledge displayed by the prophets, thatthere were numbers of other copies in popular circulation, the kingmust have known its sacred contents in some degree. But he might havebeen a stranger to the passage read him, or the reading of it might,in the peculiar circumstances, have found a way to his heart in amanner that he never felt before. His strong faith in the divineword, and his painful consciousness that the woeful andlong-continued apostasies of the nation had exposed them to theinfliction of the judgments denounced, must have come withoverwhelming force on the heart of so pious a prince.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe,…. Not at the first time of his message to him, but afterwards that he attended on him upon the same business; after the high priest had examined the temple to know what repairs it wanted, and where:

I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord; some think this was only the book of Deuteronomy, and some only some part of that; rather the whole Pentateuch, and that not a copy of it, but the very autograph of Moses, written with his own hand, as it seems from 2Ch 34:14. Some say he found it in the holy of holies, on the side of the ark; there it was put originally; but, indeed, had it been there, he might have found it before, and must have seen it, since, as high priest, he entered there once every year; more probably some pious predecessor of his had taken it from thence in a time of general corruption, as in the reign of Manasseh, and hid it in some private place, under a lay of stones, as Jarchi, in some hole in the wall, which upon search about repairs was found there:

and Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it; and though there might be some copies of it in private hands, yet scarce; and perhaps Shaphan had never seen one, at least a perfect one, or however had never read it through, as now he did.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Hilkiah the high priest (cf. 2Ch 34:15) said, “I have found the book of the law in the house of Jehovah.” , the book of the law (not a law-book or a roll of laws), cannot mean anything else, either grammatically or historically, than the Mosaic book of the law (the Pentateuch), which is so designated, as is generally admitted, in the Chronicles, and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

(Note: Thenius has correctly observed, that “ the expression shows very clearly, that the allusion is to something already known, not to anything that had come to light for the first time; ” but is he greatly mistaken when, notwithstanding this, he supposes that what we are to understand by this is merely a collection of the commandments and ordinances of Moses, which had been worked up in the Pentateuch, and more especially in Deuteronomy. For there is not the smallest proof whatever that any such collection of commandments and ordinances of Moses, or, as Bertheau supposes, the collection of Mosaic law contained in the three middle books of the Pentateuch, or Deuteronomy 1-28 (according to Vaihinger, Reuss, and others), was ever called , or that any such portions had had an independent existence, and had been deposited in the temple. These hypotheses are simply bound up with the attacks made upon the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and ought to be given up, since De Wette, the great leader of the attack upon the genuineness of the Pentateuch, in 162 a of the later editions of his Introduction to the Old Testament, admits that the account before us contains the first certain trace of the existence of our present Pentateuch. The only loophole left to modern criticism, therefore, is that Hilkiah forged the book of the law discovered by him under the name of Moses, – a conclusion which can only be arrived at by distorting the words of the text in the most arbitrary manner, turning “ find ” into “ forge, ” but which is obliged either to ignore or forcibly to set aside all the historical evident of the previous existence of the whole of the Pentateuch, including Deuteronomy.)

The finding of the book of the law in the temple presupposes that the copy deposited there had come to light. But it by no means follows from this, that before its discovery there were no copies in the hands of the priests and prophets. The book of the law that was found was simply the temple copy,

(Note: Whether the original written by Moses ‘ own hand, as Grotius inferred from the of the Chronicles, or a later copy of this, is a very superfluous question; for, as Hvernick says, “ even in the latter case it was to be regarded just in the same light as the autograph, having just the same claims, since the temple repaired by Josiah was the temple of Solomon still. ” )

deposited, according to Deu 31:26, by the side of the ark of the covenant, which had been lost under the idolatrous kings Manasseh and Amon, and came to light again now that the temple was being repaired. We cannot learn, either from the account before us, or from the words of the Chronicles (2Ch 34:14), “when they were taking out the money brought into the house of Jehovah, Hilkiah found the book of the law of the Lord,” in what part of the temple it had hitherto lain; and this is of no importance so far as the principal object of the history is concerned. Even the words of the Chronicles simply point out the occasion on which the book was discovered, and do not affirm that it had been lying in one of the treasure-chambers of the temple, as Josephus says. The expression does not imply that Shaphan read the whole book through immediately.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Law Book Found Commentary on 2Ki 22:8-13 AND 2Ch 34:14-21

In the course of the temple repair work Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law, which he delivered to Shaphan. Shaphan read the book, evidently impressed by it, but his reaction is not stated. He reported the find to King Josiah in the course of a report on the progress of the work. His report was rather routine, that the money had been gathered and delivered to those who would oversee the work and workmen. The work was progressing according to the king’s command.

Then Shaphan made reference to the book which had been uncovered in the temple. He read it to the king, who was so disturbed by its contents he tore his clothing in distress. What was this upsetting volume, and why was it lost? Which book of Moses it was is not revealed, though from the things attributed to it, it seems to have been the book of Deuteronomy. It is not hard to conceive of its having been lost, though when the loss occurred cannot be ascertained. It seems to have been neglected for so long that the priests no longer were aware of its existence.

Modernists contend that the Book of Deuteronomy_ was a product of the scribes of the late period of Judaean history, with a false claim to having been written by Moses. It was supposed to strengthen their hand with the people. Thus it would have been a subtle plant in the temple, intended to be discovered and delivered to a gullible and naive king, who would immediately accept it as genuine. This is certainly a blasphemous explanation, for Christ Himself referred to Deuteronomy as the work of Moses (e.g., Mat 19:7), and scholars agree that it contains internal linguistic evidence of his authorship.

Given the periods during which the temple was closed by Ahaz, then later defiled by Manasseh, it is not surprising that the books of Moses were neglected, and this one eventually forgotten. Josiah’s alarm was caused by a realization that Judah was guilty of the sins of which Moses warns in the Book of Deuteronomy. He knew that god’s warning of judgment for such sins appertained to Judah, and they were likely to feel that judgment.

Josiah hoped for some way of escape from this impending judgment. For this reason he sent a prestigious delegation to inquire of the Lord what Judah could expect. It included both Hilkiah and Shaphan, and two other men. One of these was Ahikam, the son of Shaphan. He would be later prominent in the ministry of Jeremiah (Jer 26:24), in saving the prophet’s life. He was also the father of Gedaliah, the Jewish governor who was assassinated after Nebuchadnezzar appointed him following the fall of Jerusalem (2Ki 25:22).

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

C. A LOST BOOK RECOVERED 22:813

TRANSLATION

(8) And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, The book of the law I have found in the house of the LORD! And Hilkiah gave the book unto Shaphan, and he read it. (9) And Shaphan the scribe came unto the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Your servants have gathered the silver that was found in the house, and they have given it into the hand of the workers, the ones who have been ap pointed in the house of the LORD. (10) And Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest has given to me a book, and Shaphan read it before the king. (11) And when the king heard the words of the book of the Law, he rent his garments. (12) And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Achbor the son of Michaiah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah the servant of the king, saying, (13) Go inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah concerning the words of this book which was found, for great is the wrath of the LORD which is kindled against us because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book to do according to all that which is written concerning us.

COMMENTS

On the very day that the royal order came to commence the renovation, Hilkiah sent word back to the king of a striking discovery. During the preliminary surveys which preceded the building operation, an ancient law book had been discovered. Opinions differ as to exactly what this book was. Some think that it was only the Book of Deuteronomy or some part thereof. Others think the book may have been the entire Pentateuch.[641] Hilkiah handed the ancient document over to Shaphan who read enough from it to determine that the book was exceedingly valuable and should be brought to the attention of the king (2Ki. 22:8).

[641] It was the official Temple copy of the sacred book which was found. It would not necessarily be the only existing copy of the Law. Cf. Finley, BBC, p. 493.

Returning to the royal palace, Shaphan reported that the kings orders concerning the Temple collection had been carried out (2Ki. 22:9). Then Shaphan told the king of the book which had been found in the Temple and read excerpts from that document (2Ki. 22:10). When the king heard the tone and contents of the book, he was quite upset and demonstrated his state of mind by tearing his garments (2Ki. 22:11). He recognized the language of this book to be that of the Law of God. Even though that book had for many years been lost, yet much of its contents had been preserved and handed down orally by the pious of the nation.

In order to confirm his own personal view of the book, the king appointed a committee to make further investigations regarding it. Apparently Hilkiah the high priest was the chairman of this committee. Shaphan the scribe and his son Ahikam[642] were on it as were a certain Achbor and Asahiah[643] (2Ki. 22:12). The committee was charged to enquire of the Lord on behalf of the king concerning the document. Prior to the time of David such inquiry was made through the high priest as he utilized the Urim and Thummim. But since Davids day, one normally consulted a prophet of God in order to ascertain the divine will.[644]

[642] Ahikam once rescued Jeremiah when he was on trial for his life (Jer. 26:24). He was the father of Gedaliah who was appointed governor of the land after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem (Jer. 39:14; Jer. 40:7).

[643] These names ate spelled Abdon and Asaiah in 2Ch. 34:20. Animal names were in vogue at this time. Shaphan (rock-badger), Huldah (mole), and Achbor (mouse) are examples.

[644] See 1Ki. 22:5-8; 2Ki. 3:11; 2Ki. 8:8; Jer. 21:2; Jer. 37:7 etc.

It was not the purpose of this committee to determine whether or not the book was authentic. Of this there was no doubt. Rather the king wished to ascertain whether the threats which the book contained were to have an immediate fulfillment. Josiah recognized that the nation had been doing, and to some extent continued to do, those very things which were so forthrightly condemned in the Book of the Law. In view of the grave threats which Moses had made against practitioners of idolatry and immorality the king could not help but feel that the wrath of the Lord had already been kindled against the nation. Because of the disobedience of their fathers, the apostasy had continued now for some time. Was the cup of iniquity now full? Would the wrath of the Lord burst forth against Judah any day? (2Ki. 22:13).

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(8) I have found.Literally, the book of the Torah have I found. The definite form of the expression proves that what the high priest found was something already known; it was not a book, but the book of the Law. How little the critics are agreed as to the precise character and contents of the book in question is well shown by Thenius: Neither the entire then existing Scripture (Sebastian Schmidt), nor the Pentateuch (Josephus, Clericus, Von Lengerke, Keil, Bhr,) nor the ordered collection of Mosaic laws contained in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (Bertheau), nor the book of Exodus (Gramberg), nor the book of Deuteronomy (Reuss, Ewald, Hitzig) is to be understood by this expression. All these must have been brought into their present shape at a later time. What is meant is a collection of the statutes and ordinances of Moses, which has been worked up (verarbeitet) in the Pentateuch, and especially in Deuteronomy. This work is referred to by Jeremiah (Jer. 11:1-17),and was called The Book of the Covenant (2Ki. 23:2). According to 2Ch. 17:9 it already existed in the time of Jehoshaphat (comp. 2Ki. 11:12, the Testimony); was probably preserved in the Ark (Deu. 31:26), along with which in the reign of Manasseh it was put on one side. When after half a century of disuse it was found again by the high priest in going through the chambers of the Temple with a view to the intended repairs, in the Ark which, though cast aside, was still kept in the Temple, it appeared like something new, because it had been wholly forgotten (for a time), so that Shaphan could say: Hilkiah has given me a book (2Ki. 22:10). (See also the Notes on 2Ch. 34:14.)

And he read it.Thenius thinks that this indicates that the book was of no great size, as Shaphan made his report to the king immediately after the execution of his commission (2Ki. 22:9). But neither does 2Ki. 22:9 say immediately, nor does this phrase necessarily mean that Shaphan read the book through.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

DISCOVERY OF THE BOOK OF THE LAW, 2Ki 22:8-11.

8. I have found the book of the law The traditional and most probable meaning is, that this was the same book of the law (or a true and complete copy of it) which Moses wrote and ordered the Levite-priests to deposit and keep in the side of the ark of God, (Deu 31:9; Deu 31:24; Deu 31:26) the entire Pentateuch. Against this traditional belief and most obvious sense of the words, the bare assumption that it was only our present book of Deuteronomy, or a digest of the laws of Moses, is destitute of any force. The statement in 2Ch 34:14, that it was the book of the law of Jehovah by the hand of Moses, has led many to believe that it was the ancient autograph copy which came from the hand of the great lawgiver. This, Kitto thinks, was one reason why its discovery made such an extraordinary impression “an impression which may in part, though still imperfectly, be understood by him who has been privileged to examine some one of the most ancient manuscripts of the Scriptures now existing; and whom the very oldness of the vellum, and the antique style of the writing, with the knowledge of the long ages through which its existence may be traced, seem to take back so much nearer to the time of the writer, and give a vividness to his impressions of ancient truth which no modern copy can impart.”

It is certainly possible, and, indeed, probable, that the original copy of the law might have existed in Josiah’s time, having been long concealed in some secret place of the temple. But it is not likely that this was the only copy of the law then in existence, and the finding of it by Hilkiah was not the discovery of something which had never before been heard of, and which had now, for the first time, come to light. We naturally infer from the course of the history that during the last great apostasy of more than half a century (from the beginning of Manasseh’s reign even up to this eighteenth year of Josiah seventy-five years) the book of the law had been utterly neglected, and the knowledge of it existed only as a tradition among the better classes of the people. Copies probably existed here and there, especially among the prophets, but they were not generally known, and their owners may have been careful to keep their existence a secret.

In what part of the temple the book was found is a question that cannot be answered. It had probably been concealed, during a period of apostasy and persecution, by some faithful priest, who feared that the growing wickedness and the impious sacrilege of his age might destroy the sacred treasure.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The Discovery of The Book Of The Law And Its Immediate Consequences ( 2Ki 22:8-13 ).

We have already indicated above our view that this Book of the Law was found within the foundation walls themselves, having been placed there on the orders of Solomon when the Temple was built so as to connect the covenant closely with the Temple, and to act as a reminder to YHWH that the worshippers within the Temple were His covenant people. This would explain why it was immediately seen as acceptable. Any ‘unrecognised’ records would hardly have been treated in such a serious fashion. In our view the only other possible alternative would be that it was found in the Most Holy Place by the Ark. Any discovery in any other place would have occasioned much more of an examination before the king became involved.

Whilst ‘book’ is in the singular, the law of Moses was regularly spoken of as ‘the book of the law of Moses’ regardless of how many scrolls it occupied. The probability here is that a number of scrolls were found of which Hilkiah selected one to bring to Shaphan. Shaphan having then read it took it to the king. Thus initially only the one scroll was read. The lack of mention of cursings by the king, a regular feature of Deuteronomy, suggests that the portion that was read included Lev 26:28.

It should be noted that there is no indication that its contents were ‘new’. Indeed had they been seen as such they would probably have been rejected. They would have expected that what they found in the Book of the Law would link closely with their own original traditions. What was new was that it was in the form of an ancient scroll remarkably discovered in the fabric of the Temple, and was read to the king who was moved by its warning of YHWH’s wrath coming on those who had not obeyed YHWH’s requirements. That was the only sense in which it was a new revelation. We can compare how, when the Bible had been restricted to the clergy for centuries by the Roman Catholic church, its availability to a wider audience caused a similar sensation. As here it had not been ‘lost. It had simply not been read except by sholastics who read it according to their own fixed ‘interpretations’.

It should also be noted that there is no suggestion that Huldah read the book, or even saw it. The impression given is that she referred to something that the king had heard, and not to something that she herself had read (otherwise we would have expected that to be made clear). Sufficient would have been communicated to her to enable her to identify it. And naturally she would be aware of its contents as one of the faithful who had constantly read the law of YHWH, and had access to it, even in times of apostasy.

Analysis.

a And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the book of the law in the house of YHWH” (2Ki 22:8 a).

b And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it (2Ki 22:8 b).

c And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, “Your servants have emptied out the money which was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of YHWH. And Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, “Hilkiah the priest has delivered me a book” (2Ki 22:9-10 a).

d And Shaphan read it before the king (2Ki 22:10 b).

c And it came about, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he tore his clothes (2Ki 22:11).

b And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king’s servant, saying, “Go you, enquire of YHWH for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found” (2Ki 22:12-13 a)

a “For great is the wrath of YHWH that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that which is written concerning us” (2Ki 22:13 b).

Note that in ‘a’ the discovery of the Book of the Law is disclosed to Shaphan by Hilkiah, and in the parallel the king is deeply stirred ‘by the words of this book’, as disclosed to him by Shaphan. In ‘b’ Hilkiah delivers ‘the book’ to Shaphan who reads it, and in the parallel both Hilkiah and Shaphan are a part of the deputation to the prophetess Huldah, sent to enquire concerning the warnings given in the book. In ‘c’ Shaphan reports to Josiah concerning the book, and in the parallel the king tears his clothes at what it says. Centrally in ‘d’ it was read before the king.

2Ki 22:8

‘And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the book of the law in the house of YHWH.” And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it.’

Hilkiah clearly saw the find as of such importance that it had to be reported to the king, and in consequence sent a messenger to Shaphan the court chamberlain informing him of the find. This in itself indicates how unusual the find was seen to be. It must have been something very special to have initiated such a response, otherwise it would simply have been placed with the other scrolls in the Temple. The fact that he described it as ‘The Book Of The Law’ indicated that he saw it as primarily containing the Law of Moses. As he had not read it (and was possibly finding it difficult to do so because of its ancient script) this description could only have arisen because he had grounds for knowing what it must be. That would hardly be true of some document left in the Temple which had been introduced there from outside which they had simply come across among the many treasures stored in the Temple. If, however, if it was found within the foundation structure of the Temple he would know immediately what it was, the ancient covenant between YHWH and His worshippers, coming from the time of Solomon.

It is true that we are not specifically told where the Book of the Law was discovered, but the impression given is that it was discovered as a result of the building work commencing, and probably therefore as a result of the initial survey work which would be required before that commenced. Some have suggested that it was the copy of the Book of the Law which Moses had required be placed next to the Ark of the covenant of YHWH (Deu 31:24-26), but it is difficult to see why that should have remained undiscovered for so long, especially as the Most Holy Place was entered at least once a year. The most obvious explanation is that it was discovered within the foundation walls while preparing for structural repairs.

That Judah already had a written ‘book of the Law’ is accepted under most theories (even if in truncated form in the postulated but doubtful J and E), so it is difficult to see why the discovery of another book of the law would in the normal way cause such excitement, especially if it was not known where it came from, certainly not sufficient for it to be taken immediately to the king by official messengers. But we can equally certainly understand why ancient scrolls discovered within the structure of the Temple itself would produce precisely that kind of excitement. They would have been treated with the utmost reverence as containing the wisdom of the ancients.

Hilkiah then ‘delivered the book to Shaphan.’ If there were a number of scrolls he may well simply have handed one of them to Shaphan. Or it may be that Shaphan received them all and selected one to read. Either way Shaphan then ‘read the book’, although not necessarily all the scrolls.

2Ki 22:9

‘And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, “Your servants have emptied out the money which was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of YHWH.’

Shaphan then reported to the king concerning the progress on the Temple repairs, informing him that the priestly overseers of the work had been duly provided with the necessary funds.

2Ki 22:10

‘And Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, “Hilkiah the priest has delivered me a book.” And Shaphan read it before the king.’

Then Shaphan explained that Hilkiah ‘the Priest’ had ‘delivered a book’ to him. No doubt a fuller explanation concerning the find was given, otherwise the king would probably not have been interested. Shaphan then read it before the king. Assuming that a number of scrolls had been found Shaphan would hardly have brought them all in. Thus he had presumably selected one for the purpose of reading it before the king. As we have seen the overall context certainly suggests that it was not simply a part of Deuteronomy. Nor is it conceivable why, if that were all it was, and the king did not know what Deuteronomy was, he should have wanted to hear the reading, for he would have considered that he already knew what the Law was.

2Ki 22:11

‘And it came about, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he tore his clothes.’

What was read out to the king moved him deeply, with the result that he symbolically tore his clothes in order to express his deep emotion, for it spoke of the wrath of YHWH against His people because they had not walked in fulfilment of His requirements.

2Ki 22:12

‘And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king’s servant, saying,’

The king recognised that the people had not been observing the requirements laid down in the book, but it was the warnings of what would follow such disobedience that moved him. Thus he sent an important official deputation, combining both religious and political authorities, to a recognised prophetess, in order to enquire as to whether the wrath of YHWH was about to be poured out on them.

Ahikam the son of Shaphan would later help Jeremiah (Jer 26:24). His son was Gedaliah who became governor of Judah (2Ki 25:22; Jer 39:14). Achbor means ‘mouse’ (compare Shaphan = rock badger, Huldah = mole, which suggests that at the time there was a preference for names connected with animals. ‘The king’s servant’ indicated a prominent court official. It was a term common on seals from Judah. .

2Ki 22:13

“Go you, enquire of YHWH for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found, for great is the wrath of YHWH that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that which is written concerning us.”

He called on them to ‘enquire of YHWH’ on his behalf concerning the fact that the people (indeed ‘all of Judah’) had been disobedient to what was written in the book. His aim was to discover whether YHWH intended to visit His people with the great wrath described in the book. It is noteworthy that no mention is made of blessings and cursings (which we might have expected if it was Deuteronomy). It is the wrath of YHWH that he fears, the wrath described in Lev 26:16; Lev 26:22; Lev 26:25; Lev 26:28-31; Lev 26:33; Lev 26:38. For ‘enquiring of YHWH’ see 2Ki 3:11; 2Ki 8:8; Gen 25:22; 1Ki 22:8.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

2Ki 22:8. I have found the book of the law This is generally agreed to have been the archetype written by Moses, and by him ordered to be deposited with the ark, in the most holy place, but which some pious high-priest had caused to be thus hid in the reign of Ahaz or Manasseh, to prevent its being destroyed with all the other copies of it; for it plainly appears by the tenour of the history, that this was the only perfect one left. But it is much disputed, whether it was the whole Pentateuch, emphatically called hattorah, the law, or only Deuteronomy, or even barely the 28th, 29th, 30th, and 31st chapters of it. Josephus, by calling it “the sacred books of Moses,” seems to declare entirely for the former; others have declared for the latter, because the book of Deuteronomy is a kind of repetition or epitome of the Mosaic law. Calmet, among some others, holds the last of these three opinions, and thinks that nothing more is meant here than that short luminary which is found in the above-mentioned chapters of that book, in which are contained all the blessings and curses that so alarmed the pious monarch. But if either this short epitome, or even the whole Deuteronomy, was all that the high-priest found hid in the temple, when was the rest of the Pentateuch recovered? If it be said, that there might be some copies of this last still extant, then this luminary must have been in it; and it would be surprising that some one or more should not have been brought to so good a king, after he had given such signal proofs of his piety and zeal; and if any such had been presented to him, he must be supposed to have neglected the reading of it, or he could never have been under such surprize and fear at the reading of that which the high-priest sent to him. We therefore think, with the far greater number of Jews and Christians, that it was the whole Pentateuch; and that there might be still several imperfect and mutilated copies dispersed here and there, which might be now rectified by this prototype, after it was thus brought to light. If it be asked, how the king could run over those five books so quickly as to come presently to the blessings and curses; it may be answered, that as their manner was to write upon volumes of a considerable length, which were rolled up round one or two sticks, it might so happen, that these last chapters were on the outside; and that the king, impatient to know the contents of it, might have curiosity to read in it, before he had unfolded a round or two. We are, however, very far from rejecting the notion of the Jews, who believe that Providence directed him to that very part. Something like this we find happened under the Gospel, Luk 4:17. Act 8:28; Act 8:40. What appears most surprising is, that all the copies of the Scripture, which the good king Hezekiah seems to have caused to be written and dispersed about the kingdom, (see Pro 25:1.) should have so soon vanished, that neither Josiah, nor the high-priest, had ever seen any of them till this one was brought to light. All that can be said in this case is, that Manasseh, during the former part of his reign, had made such havock of them, that if there were any left, they were only in a few private hands, who preserved them with the utmost caution and secrecy. See the Universal History.

REFLECTIONS.One merciful respite more is given to idolatrous Judah; another good king, to prove them, if yet they will bring forth fruit, before the axe is laid to the root of the tree.

1. Though Josiah was very young, but eight years of age, when he came to the crown, he gave very early symptoms of uncommon piety, and all his days the fruit answered the promising blossoms. Note; Early piety is peculiarly pleasing and promising.

2. As soon as he was fit to take the reins of government into his own hand, he began to reform the interrupted worship, and repair the decayed temple of God. Nearly the same method seems to be taken, as in the days of Joash, chap. 12: to collect the money, and the same integrity appears in the persons employed. Note; They who delight in the temple-service, may be trusted for their fidelity and honesty in the repairs of it.

3. In the repairs of the temple, the book of the law was happily found, generally supposed to be the very copy, Deu 31:26 that Moses laid up in the most holy place. Note; (1.) The preservation of the inspired writings through so many ages, and amidst so many enemies, is a standing witness to their divine authority. (2.) When God’s word is thrust into a corner, unnoticed by, or cruelly withheld from the people, no marvel that iniquity abounds. (3.) They who have never read through all the book of God, know not how much it contains to make them tremble, or how much to comfort them: and yet how many christians, yea, protestants, are thus negligent, and never once in their lives read God’s word entire!

4. Hilkiah, having first read the book himself to Shaphan, desires him to convey it to the king, and read it in his ears, as it contained matters so deeply and nearly affecting him. Note; (1.) Reading their Bibles, is among the best employments in which kings can be engaged. (2.) They are inexcusable, who have this sacred book in their hands, and continue wilfully ignorant of its contents.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

This is a most interesting verse. It should seem very plain that during the long period that idolatry had prevailed in the land, not only the temple had been suffered to fall into ruins; but the very word of God had been so disregarded, that not a copy of it was among the people. It was God’s command by Moses, that every king should himself write out a copy of it: Deu 17:18 . And there was a further command, beside that which concerned the person of the king in studying the law of God himself; it was to be publicly read every seventh year: Deu 31:10-13 . Reader! to what a deplorable state was the children of Israel reduced at this time, when so far from reading in the word of God; the very sacred book itself they had lost. Oh! ye that disregard your bibles, that pass by the reverence ye owe to the holy word of God. Behold here the dreadful effects of it. My soul! doth God’s sacred word contain the words of eternal life, even Jesus and his great salvation? And is this precious treasure disregarded, slighted, overlooked by me? Do I suffer that holy word which is able to make me wise unto salvation; do I suffer if from Sabbath to sabbath to lie by on the shelf, until my sentence of everlasting condemnation might be, written upon the dust of it which lies upon the cover! Reader! I pray, God that this may never be your case nor mine. But what a mercy was it in God, to cause this copy which Hilkiah found to be secured during the whole reign of idolatry. Whose blessed hand was it that was thus commissioned of the Lord to put it in so secure a place in the temple? Let his memory be ever blessed. Some have thought that it was Moses, because we read that he commanded Joshua after he had finally read to the people the book of the law, to put it in the side of the ark as a witness for after ages, Deu 31:24-27 . But Reader! let it have been whom it may, have you thought of the mercy you and I have derived from it? Certain it is, that had this copy not been found, the hand that now writes; and the eye that reads those observations upon it, would never have known the one nor the other. Oh! blessed God! how evident from hence is it, even if there were no other testimonies, how evident from hence is it, that thou hast given us those scriptures of truth, from thy graciously watching over it! Oh! Lord, how gracious art thou, that so long a period of idolatry did not wear out thy long-suffering and patience! Oh! Lord, grant that I may esteem thy precious word more than my necessary food, and that it may be my study all the day. And let mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I may be occupied in thy word, I cannot help detaining the Reader with one observation more on this interesting verse, just to remark the distinguishing mercy of the Lord towards Hilkiah, that he should be the highly favored one to discover this hidden treasure. Reader! is not that minister of Jesus peculiarly blessed, whom the Lord honors with his secrets, and whom our Jesus commissions to bring out of his treasury things new and old for his household’s use? Think, Reader! what joy the discovery of this blessed book must have given to Hilkiah, when he cried out in holy transport, ‘I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord’. And let that soul describe his joy, for no language of another can express it, when from the word of God he can say, I have found Him of whom Moses and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth! Joh 1:45 , Reader! where was this book found? Was it not in the temple? Where shall you and I find Jesus, but in his ordinances, his word, his house of prayer!

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2Ki 22:8 And 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.

Ver. 8. I have found the book of the law. ] Authenticum Mosis autographum; Deuteronomy; or perhaps the whole law in Moses’s own handwriting: and by him caused to be put by the side of the ark, as a . Deu 31:26 This was not venerandae rubiginis, as some books are, sed summae authoritatis monumentum. The Turks themselves do so reverence Moses, that if they find but a paper wherein any part of the pentateuch is written, they presently take it up, and kiss it. This precious piece might in the confusions of Manasseh and Amon be hidden or mislaid; and now it is brought to the king as a rare jewel, and a good reward of his zeal in repairing the temple. R. Solomon saith that wicked Manasseh sought to abolish the law, as point-blank against his idolatry and cruelty. Therefore some good priests had hid this original copy, which now came to light and sight. For it is not credible that this good king had never read the law till now. But that he had not so thoroughly read and considered the comminations of the law as now he did, is evident. But what a shame is it, that Bibles, now so common, are so little set by amongst us: when our devout forefathers would have purchased some few chapters at a great rate! It is a sad complaint that Moulin maketh a of the French Protestants: whilst they burnt us, saith he, for reading the Scriptures, we burnt with zeal to be reading them. Now with our liberty is bred also negligence and disesteem of God’s word.

a Moul. Thea., p. 278.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2 Kings

THE REDISCOVERED LAW AND ITS EFFECTS

2Ki 22:8 – 2Ki 22:20 .

We get but a glimpse into a wild time of revolution and counter-revolution in the brief notice that the ‘servants of Amon,’ Josiah’s father, conspired and murdered him in his palace, but were themselves killed by a popular rising, in which the ‘people of the land made Josiah his son king in his stead,’ and so no doubt balked the conspirators’ plans. Poor boy! he was only eight years old when he made his first acquaintance with rebellion and bloodshed. There must have been some wise heads and strong arms and loyal hearts round him, but their names have perished. The name of David was still a spell in Judah, and guarded his childish descendant’s royal rights. In the eighteenth year of his reign, the twenty-sixth of his age, he felt himself firm enough in the saddle to begin a work of religious reformation, and the first reward of his zeal was the finding of the book of the law. Josiah, like the rest of us, gained fuller knowledge of God’s will in the act of trying to do it so far as he knew it. ‘Light is sown for the upright.’

I. We have, first, the discovery of the law. The important and complicated critical questions raised by the narrative cannot be discussed here, nor do they affect the broad lines of teaching in the incident. Nothing is more truthful-like than the statement that, in course of the repairs of the Temple, the book should be found,-probably in the holiest place, to which the high priest would have exclusive access. How it came to have been lost is a more puzzling question; but if we recall that seventy-five years had passed since Hezekiah, and that these were almost entirely years of apostasy and of tumult, we shall not wonder that it was so. Unvalued things easily slip out of sight, and if the preservation of Scripture depended on the estimation which some of us have of it, it would have been lost long ago. But the fact of the loss suggests the wonder of the preservation. It would appear that this copy was the only one existing,-at all events, the only one known. It alone transmitted the law to later days, like some slender thread of water that finds its way through the sand and brings the river down to broad plains beyond. Think of the millions of copies now, and the one dusty, forgotten roll tossing unregarded in the dilapidated Temple, and be thankful for the Providence that has watched over the transmission. Let us take care, too, that the whole Scripture is not as much lost to us, though we have half a dozen Bibles each, as the roll was to Josiah and his men.

Hilkiah’s announcement to Shaphan has a ring of wonder and of awe in it. It sounds as if he had not known that such a book was anywhere in the Temple. And it is noteworthy that not he, but Shaphan, is said to have read it. Perhaps he could not,-though, if he did not, how did he know what the book was? At all events, he and Shaphan seem to have felt the importance of the find, and to have consulted what was to be done. Observe how the latter goes cautiously to work, and at first only says that he has received ‘a book.’ He gives it no name, but leaves it to tell its own story,-which it was then, and is still, well able to do. Scripture is its own best credentials and witnesses whence it comes. Again Shaphan is the reader, as it was natural that a ‘scribe’ should be, and again the possibility is that Josiah could not read.

II. One can easily picture the scene while the reader’s voice went steadily through the commandments, threatenings, and promises,-the deepening eagerness of the king, the gradual shaping out before his conscience of God’s ideal for him and his people, and the gradual waking of the sense of sin in him, like a dormant serpent beginning to stir in the first spring sunshine.

The effect of God’s law on the sinful heart is vividly pictured in Josiah’s emotion. ‘By the law is the knowledge of sin.’ To many of us that law, in spite of our outward knowledge of it, is as completely absent from our consciousness as it had been from the most ignorant of Josiah’s subjects; and if for once its searchlight were thrown into the hidden corners of our hearts and lives, it would show up in dreadful clearness the skulking foes that are stealing to assail us, and the foul things that have made good their lodgment in our hearts and lives. It always makes an epoch in a life when it is really brought to the standard of God’s law; and it is well for us if, like Josiah, we rend our clothes, or rather ‘our heart, and not our garments,’ and take home the conviction, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’

The dread of punishment sprang up in the young king’s heart, and though that emotion is not the highest motive for seeking the Lord, it is not an unworthy one, and is meant to lead on to nobler ones than itself. There is too much unwillingness, in many modern conceptions of Christ’s gospel, to recognise the place which the apprehension of personal evil consequences from sin has in the initial stages of the process by which we are ‘translated from the kingdom of darkness into that of God’s dear Son.’

III. The message to Huldah is remarkable. The persons sent with it show its importance. The high priest, the royal secretary, and one of the king’s personal attendants, who was, no doubt, in his confidence, and two other influential men, one of whom, Ahikam, is known as Jeremiah’s staunch friend, would make some stir in ‘the second quarter,’ on their way to the modest house of the keeper of the wardrobe. The weight and number of the deputation did honour to the prophetess, as well as showed the king’s anxiety as to the matter in hand. Jeremiah and Zephaniah were both living at this time, and we do not know why Huldah was preferred. Perhaps she was more accessible. But conjecture is idle. Enough that she was recognised as having, and declared herself to have, direct authoritative communications from God.

For what did Josiah need to inquire of the Lord ‘concerning the words of this book’? They were plain enough. Did he hope to have their sternness somewhat mollified by the words of a prophetess who might be more amenable to entreaties or personal considerations than the unalterable page was? Evidently he recognised Huldah as speaking with divine authority, and he might have known that two depositories of God’s voice could not contradict each other. But possibly his embassy simply reflected his extreme perturbation and alarm, and like many another man when God’s law startles him into consciousness of sin, he betook himself to one who was supposed to be in God’s counsels, half hoping for a mitigated sentence, and half uncertain of what he really wished. He confusedly groped for some support or guide. But, confused as he was, his message to the prophetess implied repentance, eager desire to know what to do, and humble docility. If dread of evil consequences leads us to such a temper, we shall hear, as Josiah did, answers of peace as authoritative and divine as were the threatenings that brought us to our senses and our knees.

IV. The answer which Josiah received falls into two parts, the former of which confirms the threatenings of evil to Jerusalem, while the latter casts a gleam athwart the thundercloud, and promises Josiah escape from the national calamities. Observe the difference in the designation given him in the two parts. When the threatenings are confirmed, his individuality is, as it were, sunk; for that part of the message applies to any and every member of the nation, and therefore he is simply called ‘the man that sent you.’ Any other man would have received the same answer. But when his own fate is to be disclosed, then he is ‘the king of Judah, who sent you,’ and is described by the official position which set him apart from his subjects.

Huldah has but to confirm the dread predictions of evil which the roll had contained. What else can a faithful messenger of God do than reiterate its threatenings? Vainly do men seek to induce the living prophet to soften down God’s own warnings. Foolishly do they think that the messenger or the messenger’s Sender has any ‘pleasure in the death of the wicked’; and as foolishly do they take the message to be unkind, for surely to warn that destruction waits the evildoer is gracious. The signal-man who waves the red flag to stop the train rushing to ruin is a friend. Huldah was serving Judah best by plain reiteration of the ‘words of the book.’

But the second half of her message told that in wrath God remembered mercy. And that is for ever true. His thunderbolts do not strike indiscriminately, even when they smite a nation. Judah’s corruption had gone too far for recovery, and the carcase called for the gathering together of the vultures, but Josiah’s penitence was not in vain. ‘I have heard thee’ is always said to the true penitent, and even if he is involved in widespread retribution, its strokes become different to him. Josiah was assured that the evil should not come in his days. But Huldah’s promise seems contradicted by the circumstances of his death. It was a strange kind of being gathered to his grave in peace when he fell on the fatal field of Megiddo, and ‘his servants carried him in a chariot dead, . . . and buried him in his own sepulchre’ 2Ki 23:30. But the promise is fulfilled in its real meaning by the fact that the threatenings which he was inquiring about did not fall on Judah in his time, and so far as these were concerned, he did come to his grave in peace.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

the book of the law. i.e. the original copy of the Pentateuch, laid up by the side of the Ark (Deu 31:24-26). Probably secreted during the reigns of Manasseh (2Ki 21:16) and Amon (2Ki 21:21). See App-47.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

I have found: This certainly was a genuine copy of the divine law, and probably the autograph of Moses, as it is said, in the parallel place of Chronicles, to be the book of the law of the Lord by Moses. It is not probable that this was the only copy of the law in the land, or that Josiah had never before seen the book of Moses; but the fact seems to be, that this was the original of the covenant renewed by Moses in the plains of Moab, and now being unexpectedly found, its antiquity, the occasion of its being made, the present circumstances of the people, the imperfect state in which the reformation was as yet, after all that had been done, would all concur to produce the effect here mentioned on the mind of the pious Josiah. Deu 31:24-26, 2Ch 34:14, 2Ch 34:15-28

Reciprocal: Deu 17:18 – out of that which Deu 31:26 – in the side Jos 8:31 – as it is 2Ki 23:2 – the book 2Ki 23:24 – the book Ezr 7:1 – Hilkiah Jer 29:3 – Shaphan Eze 8:11 – Shaphan

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE BIBLELOST OR FOUND?

And Hilkiah the priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord.

2Ki 22:8

There is an apparent discrepancy between the recorded facts of the reign of Josiah and the indications of his inward temperament and disposition which are given to us. The facts of his reign, if we could come to their study independently, would lead us to characterise him as an ardent, sanguine, energetic man. All seems consistent with this view; his zeal for religion, his labour in the restoration of the Temple and the reformation of the kingdom, and the warlike spirit which forced a collision with the power of Egypt and cost him his life at Megiddo. Activity, forwardness, and enterprise seem to mark the man, quite as distinctly as the deep religious principle which hallowed his doings.

Such would be the conclusion from the data of a human historian. But here the superhuman element comes in to represent his real character in a very different light. Huldah the prophetess is appropriately introduced to speak of him as tender, sensitive, and feminine in character, and to promise as his best reward that he should be taken away early from the evil to come.

I. During the restoration of the Temple a sensation was produced by the discovery of the original roll of the Law, which had been put into the ark eight centuries before.The reading of the book produced panic and dismay because of its contents, its threatenings, the evil denounced in it against the sins of the house of Judah. King and people alike seem to have been ignorant of the very existence of their Bible, as a book containing the revelation of Gods wrath against sinners.

II. This story touches not only the nation or the Church; it touches every one of us.Are there not many of us who have lost the book of lifelost it how much more wilfully, how much more guiltily, because in so many senses we have it? If we acquire the habit of studying the Bible merely or chiefly with scientific or literary views, of prying into it, dissecting it, criticising the word because it is mans, as if it were not also Gods, can we help fearing that we may be losing the word of life?

III. Notice the result of the discovery of the Book of the Law.The king rent his clothes, and sent to inquire of the Lord for himself and his people concerning the words of the book that was found. Let us also seek for deep and living repentance for the sin which our ignorance has been.

Dean Scott.

Illustration

The book had been lost. Strange to say, too, it had been lost in the Lords House. The way it came was thisthe people had given up the worship of God, and naturally they gave up Gods book. When they were worshipping idols they had no inclination for the holy law. When the book was used no longer, it easily got lost. The Bible is often lost in modern life. One may have a very nice copy of the Bible bound in morocco, and may even prize it as a handsome book, perhaps as a present, and keep it carefully, and yet really have no Bible. The Bible we do not read, take into our heart, and obey, is a lost Bible to us.

There are many persons who once loved the Bible and used it, but who have now lost it. They never open it. They pay no heed to its commands. Their hearts have become filled with other things; there is no room for Gods Word. Sometimes the book is entirely given up and sneered at. There are homes where the Bible was once a living book, highly prized, but where it is now lost. There is no more family worship. There have been times in the history of the world when even in the Church the Bible was a lost book.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

2Ki 22:8. I have found the book of the law This is generally agreed to have been the archetype written by Moses, and by him ordered to be deposited with the ark in the most holy place; but which some pious high- priest had caused to be thus hid in the reign of Ahaz or Manasseh, to prevent its being destroyed with the other copies of it; for it plainly appears, by the tenor of the history, that there were few, if any others, left. But it is much disputed, whether it was the whole Pentateuch, emphatically called , he torah, the law, or only Deuteronomy, or even barely the 28th, 29th, 30th, and 31st chapters of that book. Josephus, by calling it the sacred books of Moses, seems to declare entirely for the former; as do far the greater number of Jews and Christians. If it be asked how Shaphan, reading to the king, could run over those five books so quickly as to come presently to the blessings and curses; it may be answered, that as their manner was to write upon volumes of a considerable length, which were rolled up round one or two sticks, it might so happen, that these last chapters proved to be on the outside, and that the king, impatient to know the contents of it, might desire to have them read before he had unfolded a round or two. Or we may suppose, with the Jews, that Providence directed him to that very part. Something like this we find happened under the gospel, Luk 4:17; Act 18:28, &c. What appears most surprising is, that all the copies of the Scriptures, which the good King Hezekiah seems to have caused to be written and dispersed about the kingdom, (see Pro 25:1,) should be so soon vanished, that neither Josiah nor the high-priest had ever seen any of them till this one was brought to light. All that can be said in this case is, that Manasseh, during the former part of his reign, had made such a havoc of them, that if there were any left, they were only in a few private hands, who preserved them with the utmost caution and secrecy. See Dodd. and Univ. Hist. What a providence was this, that this book of the law was still preserved! And what a providence it is that the whole book of God is preserved to us! If the Holy Scriptures had not been of God, they would not have been in being at this day. Gods care of the Bible is a plain proof of his interest in it. We may observe further here, it was a great instance of Gods favour, and a token for good to Josiah and his people, that the book of the law was thus seasonably brought to light, to direct and quicken that blessed reformation which Josiah had begun. It is a sign God has mercy in store for a people, when he magnifies his law among them, and makes that honourable, and furnishes them with the means of increasing in Scripture knowledge. The translating of the Scriptures into the vulgar tongues was the glory, strength, and joy of the reformation from popery. And now, (in the year 1811,) the plans laid, and, in a great degree, carried into execution, by the British and Foreign Bible Society, to translate the Scriptures into the vernacular language of every nation upon earth, and to give them to every kindred, and tongue, and people, is at once the honour and the happiness of the present age, and will form one of the most glorious eras of the British empire. It is worthy of observation also, that Josiah and his people were engaged in a good work, namely, repairing the temple, when they found the book of the law. They that do their duty according to their knowledge, shall have their knowledge increased. To him that hath shall be given. The book of the law was an abundant recompense for all their care and cost in repairing the temple.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

22:8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the {e} book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.

(e) This was the copy that Moses left them, as it appears in 2Ch 34:14 , which either by the negligence of the priests had been lost, or else by the wickedness of idolatrous kings had been abolished.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

JOSIAHS REFORMATION

2Ki 22:8-20; 2Ki 23:1-25

“And the works of Josias were upright before his Lord with a heart full of godliness.”

– #/RAPC 1Es 1:23

“From Zion shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”

– Isa 2:3

IT is from the Prophets-Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Ezekiel-that we catch almost our sole glimpses of the vast world-movements of the nations which must have loomed large on the minds of the King of Judah and of all earnest politicians in that day. As they did not directly affect the destiny of Judah till the end of the reign, they do not interest the historian of the Kings or the latter Chronicler. The things which rendered the reign memorable in their eyes were chiefly two-the finding of “the Book of the Law” in the House of the Lord, and the consequent religious reformation.

It is with the first of these two events that we must deal in the present chapter.

Josiah began to reign as a child of eight, and it may be that the emphatic and honorable mention of his mother-Jedidah (“Beloved”), daughter of Adaiah of Boscath-may be due to the fact that he owed to her training that early proclivity to faithfulness which earns for him the unique testimony, that he not only “walked in the way of David his father,” but that “he turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.”

At first, of course, as a mere child, he could take no very active steps. The Chronicler says that at sixteen he began to show his devotion, and at twenty set himself the task of purging Judah and Jerusalem from the taint of idols. Things were in a bad condition, as we see from the bitter complaints and denunciations of Zephaniah and Jeremiah. Idolatry of the worst description was still openly tolerated. But Josiah was supported by a band of able and faithful advisers. Shaphan, grandfather of the unhappy Gedaliah-afterwards the Chaldaean viceroy over conquered Judah-was scribe; Hilkiah, the son of Shallum and the ancestor of Ezra, was the high priest. By them the king was assisted, first in the obliteration of the prevalent emblems of idolatry, and then in the purification of the Temple. Two centuries and a half had elapsed since it had been last repaired by Joash, and it must have needed serious restoration during long years of neglect in the reigns of Ahaz, of Manasseh, and of Amon. Subscriptions were collected from the people by “the keepers of the door,” and were freely entrusted to the workmen and their overseers, who employed them faithfully in the objects for which they were designed.

The repairs led to an event of momentous influence on the future time. During the cleansing of the Temple Hilkiah came to Shaphan, and said, “I have found the Book of the Law in the House of the Lord.” Perhaps the copy of the book had been placed by some priests hand beside the Ark, and had been discovered during the removal of the rubbish which neglect had there accumulated. Shaphan read the book; and when next he had to see the king to tell him about the progress of the repairs, he said to him, “Hilkiah the priest hath handed me a book.” Josiah bade him read some of it aloud. It is evident that he read the curses contained in Deu 28:1-68. They horrified the pious monarch; for all that they contained, and the laws to which they were appended, were wholly new to him. He might well be amazed that a code so solemn, and purporting to have emanated from Moses, should, in spite of maledictions so fearful, have become an absolute dead letter. In deep alarm he sent the priest, the scribe Shapbah, with his son Ahikam, and Abdon, the son of Micaiah, and Asahiah, a court official, to inquire of Jehovah, whose great anger could not but be kindled against king and people by the obliteration and nullity of His law. They consulted Huldah, the only prophetess mentioned in the Old Testament, except Miriam and Deborah. She was the wife of Shaltum and keeper of the priests robes, {Exo 28:2, etc.} and she lived in the suburbs of the city. Her answer was an uncompromising menace. All the curses which the king had heard against the place and people should be pitilessly fulfilled, -only, as the king had showed a tender heart, and had humbled himself before Jehovah, he should go to his own grave in peace.

Thereupon the king summoned to the Temple a great assembly of priests, prophets, and all the people, and, standing by the pillar (or “on the platform”) in the entrance of the inner court, read “all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the House of the Lord” in their ears, and joined with them in “the covenant” to obey the hitherto unknown or totally forgotten laws which were inculcated in the newly discovered volume.

Immediate action followed. The priests were ordered to bring out of the Temple all the vessels made for Baal, for the Asherah, and for the host of heaven; they were burnt outside Jerusalem in the Valley of Kedron, and their ashes taken to Bethel. The chemarim of the high places were suppressed, as well as all other idolatrous priests who burnt incense to the signs of the Zodaic, the Hyades, and the heavenly bodies. The Asherah itself was taken out of the Temple, and it is truly amazing that we should find it there so late in Josiahs reign. He burnt it in the Kedron, stamped it to powder, and scattered the powder “on the graves of the common people.” The Chronicler says “on the graves of them that had sacrificed” to the idols-but this is an inexplicable statement, since it is (as Professor Lumby says) very improbable that idolaters had a separate burial-place. It is equally shocking, and to us incomprehensible, to read that the houses of the degraded Qedeshim still stood, not “by the Temple” (A.V), but “in the Temple,” and that in these houses, or chambers the women still “wove embroideries for the Asherah.” What was Hilkiah doing? If the priests of the high places were so guilty from Geba to Beersheba, did no responsibility attach to the high priest and other priests of the Temple who permitted the existence of these enormities not only in the bamoth at the city gates, but in the very courts of the mountain of the Lords House? If the priests of the immemorial shrines were degraded from their prerogatives, and were not allowed to come up to the altar of Jehovah in Jerusalem, by what law of justice were they to be regarded as so immeasurably inferior to the highest members of their own order, who, for years together, had permitted the worship of a wooden phallic emblem, and the existence of the worst heathen abominations within the very Temple of the Lord? Every honest reader must admit that there are inexplicable difficulties and uncertainties in these ancient histories, and that our knowledge of the exact circumstances-especially in all that regards the priests and Levites who, in the Chronicles, are their own ecclesiastical historians-must remain extremely imperfect.

And what can be meant by the clause that the degraded priests of the old high places, though they were not allowed to serve at the great altar, yet “did eat of the unleavened bread among their brethren”? Unleavened bread was only eaten at the Passover; and when there was a Passover, was eaten by all alike. Perhaps the reading for “unleavened bread” should be (priestly) “portions”-a reading found by Geiger in an old manuscript.

Continuing his work, Josiah defiled Tophet; took away the horses given by the kings of Judah to the sun, which were stabled beside the chamber of the eunuch Nathan-Melech in the precincts; and burnt the sun-chariots in the fire. He removed the altars to the stars on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz, {See Zep 1:5; Jer 19:13; Jer 32:29} and ground them to powder. He also destroyed those of his grandfather Manasseh in the two Temple courts-which we supposed to have been removed by Manasseh in his repentance-and threw, the dust into the Kedron. He defiled the idolatrous shrines reared by Solomon to the deities of Sidon, Ammon and Moloch, broke the pillars, cut down the Asherim, and filled their places with dead mens bones. Traveling northwards, he burnt, destroyed, and stamped to powder the altars and the Asherim at Bethel, and burnt upon the altars the remains found in the sepulchres, only leaving undisturbed the remains of the old prophet from Judah, and of the prophet of Samaria. {1Ki 13:29-31} He then destroyed the other Samaritan shrines, exercising an undisputed authority over the Northern Kingdom. The mixed inhabitants did not interfere with his proceedings; and in the declining fortunes of Nineveh, the Assyrian viceroy – if there was one-did not dispute his authority. Lastly, in accordance with the fierce injunction of Deu 17:2-5, “he slew all the priests of the high places” on their own altars, burnt mens bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem.

It is very difficult, with the milder notions which we have learnt from the spirit of the gospel, to look with approval on the recrudescence of the Elijah-spirit displayed by the last proceeding. But many centuries were to elapse, even under the Gospel Dispensation, before men learnt the sacred principle of the early Christians that “violence is hateful to God.” Josiah must be judged by a more lenient judgment, and he was obeying a mandate found in the new Book of the Law. But the question arises whether the fierce commands of Deuteronomy were ever intended to be taken au pied de la lettre. May not Deu 13:6-18 have been intended to express in a concrete but ideal form the spirit of execration to be entertained towards idolatry? Perhaps in thinking so we are only guilty of an anachronism, and are applying to the seventh century before Christ the feelings of the nineteenth century after Christ.

After this Josiah ordered the people to keep a Deuteronomic Passover, such as we are told-and as all the circumstances prove-had not been kept from the days of the Judges. The Chronicler revels in the details of this Passover, and tells us that Josiah gave the people thirty thousand lambs and kids, and three thousand bullocks; and his priests gave two thousand six hundred small cattle and three hundred oxen; and the chief of the Levites gave the Levites five thousand small cattle, and five hundred oxen. He goes on to describe the slaying, sprinkling of blood, flaying, roasting, boiling in pots, pans, and caldrons, and attention paid to the burnt-offerings and the fat; {2Ch 35:1-19} but neither the historians nor the chroniclers, either here or anywhere else, say one word about the Day of Atonement, or seem aware of its existence. It belongs to the Post-Exilic Priestly Code, and is not alluded to in the Book of Deuteronomy.

Continuing his task, he put away them that had familiar spirits (oboth), and the wizards, and the teraphim, with a zeal shown by no king before or after him; but Jehovah “turned not from the fierceness of His anger, because of all the provocations which Manasseh had provoked Him withal.” Evil, alas! is more diffusive, and in some senses more permanent, than good, because of the perverted bias of human nature. Judah and Jerusalem had been radically corrupted by the apostate son of Hezekiah, and it may be that the sudden and high-handed reformation enforced by his grandson depended too exclusively on the external impulse given to it by the king to produce deep effects in the hearts of the people. Certain it is that even Jeremiah-though he was closely connected with the finders of the book, had perhaps been present when the solemn league and covenant was taken in the Temple, and lived through the reformation in which he probably took a considerable part-was profoundly dissatisfied with the results. It is sad and singular that such should have been the case; for in the first flush of the new enthusiasm he had written, “Cursed be the man that heareth not the words of this covenant, which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, saying, Obey My voice.” Nay, it has been inferred that he was even an itinerant preacher of the newly found law; for he writes: “And the Lord said unto me, Proclaim all these words in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, saying, Hear ye the words of this covenant, and do them.”

The style of Deuteronomy, as is well known shows remarkable affinities with the style of Jeremiah. Yet it is clear that after the death of Josiah the prophet became utterly disillusioned with the outcome of the whole movement. It proved itself to be at once evanescent and unreal. The people would not give up their beloved local shrines. The law, as Habakkuk, {Hab 1:4} became torpid; judgment went not forth to victory; the wicked compassed about the righteous, and judgment was perverted. It was easy to obey the external regulations of Deuteronomy; it was far more difficult to be true to its noble moral precepts. The reformation of Josiah, so violent and radical, proved to be only skin-deep; and Jeremiah, with bitter disappointment, found it to be so. External decency might be improved, but rites and forms are nothing to Him who searcheth the heart. {Jer 17:9-11} There was, in fact, an inherent danger in the place assumed by the newly discovered book. “Since it was regarded as a State authority, there early arose a kind of book-science, with its pedantic pride and erroneous learned endeavors to interpret and apply the Scriptures. At the same time there arose also a new kind of hypocrisy and idolatry of the letter, through the new protection which the State gave to the religion of the book acknowledged by the law. Thus scholastic wisdom came into conflict with genuine prophecy.”

How entirely the improvement of outward worship failed to improve mens hearts the prophet testifies. {Jer 17:1-4} “The sin of Judah,” he says, “is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the tablets of their hearts, and upon the horns of their altars, and their Asherim by the green trees upon the high hills. O My mountain in the field, I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in Mine eyes, which shall burn forever.” While Josiah lived this apostasy was secret; but as soon as he died the people turned again to folly,” {Psa 85:8} and committed all the old idolatries except the worship of Moloch. There arose a danger lest even the moderate ritualism of Deuteronomy should be perverted and exaggerated into mere formality. In the energy of his indignation against this abuse, Jeremiah has to uplift his voice against any trust even in the most decided injunctions of this newly discovered law. He was “a second Amos upon a higher platform.” The Deuteronomic Law did not as yet exhibit the concentrated sacerdotalism and ritualism which mark the Priestly Code, to which it is far superior in every way. It is still prophetic in its tone. It places social interests above rubrics of worship. It expresses the fundamental religious thought” that Jehovah is in no sense inaccessible; that He can be approached immediately by all, and without sacerdotal intervention; that He asks nothing for Himself, but asks it as a religious duty that man should render unto man what is right; that His Will lies not in any known height, but in the moral sphere which is known and understood by all. The book ordained certain sacrifices; yet Jeremiah says with startling emphasis, “To what purpose cometh there to Me frankincense from Sheba, and the sweet calamus from a far country? Your burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasant unto Me.” Therefore He bids them, “Put your burnt-offering to your sacrifices and eat them as flesh”-i.e., “Throw all your offerings into a mass, and eat them at your pleasure (regardless of sacerdotal rules): they have neither any inherent sanctity nor any secondary importance from the characters of the offerers.” And in a still more remarkable passage. “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey My voice.”

Nay, in the most emphatic ordinances of Deuteronomy he found that the people bad created a new peril. They were putting a particularistic trust in Jehovah, as though He were a respecter of persons, and they His favorites. They fancied, as in the days of Micah, that it was enough for them to claim His name, and bribe Him with sacrifices. {Mic 3:11} Above all, they boasted of and relied upon the possession of His Temple, and placed their trust on the punctual observance of external ceremonies. All these sources of vain confidence it was the duty of Jeremiah rudely to shatter to pieces. Standing at the gates of the Lords House, he cried: “Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The Temple of the Lord! the Temple of the Lord! the Temple of the Lord. are these! Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. Will ye steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods; and come and stand before Me in this house, whereupon My name is called, and say, We are delivered, that ye may do all these abominations? Is this house become a den of robbers in your eyes? But go ye now to My place which was in Shiloh, where I caused My name to dwell at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of My people. I will do unto this house as I have done to Shiloh; and I will cast you out of My sight, as I have cast out the whole house of Ephraim.” {Jer 7:4; Jer 7:8-15} -Yet all hope was not extinguished forever. The Scythian might disappear; the Babylonian might come in his place; but one day there should be a new covenant of pardon and restitution; and as had been promised in Deuteronomy, “all should know Jehovah, from the least to the greatest.”

At last he even prophesies the entire future annulment of the solemn covenant made on the basis of Deuteronomy, and says that Jehovah will make a new covenant with His people, not according to the covenant which He made with their fathers. {Jer 31:31-32} And in his final estimate of King Josiah after his death, he does not so much as mention his reformation, his iconoclasm, his sweeping zeal, or his enforcement of the Deuteronomic Law, but only says to Jehoiakim:-

“Did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice?- then it was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and needy: then it was well. Was not this to know Me? saith the Lord.” {Jer 22:15-16}

Whether because his methods were too violent, or because it only affected the surface of mens lives, or because the people were not really ripe for it, or because no reformation can ever succeed which is enforced by autocracy, not spread by persuasion and conviction, it is certain that the first glamour of Josiahs movement ended in disillusionment. A religion violently imposed from without as a state-religion naturally tends to hypocrisy and externalism. What Jehovah required was not a changed method of worship, but a changed heart; and this the reformation of Josiah did not produce. It has often been so in human history. Failure seems to be written on many of the most laudable human efforts. Nevertheless, truth ultimately prevails. Isaiah was murdered, and Urijah, and Jeremiah. Savonarola was burnt, and Huss, and many a martyr more; but the might of priestcraft was at last crippled, to be revived, we hope, no more, either by open violence or secret apostasy.

“Then to side with Truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,

Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and tis prosperous to be just;

Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside,

Doubting in his abject spirit till his Lord is crucified,

And the multitude make virtue of the faith they have denied.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary