Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 23:1
And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem.
Chap. 2Ki 23:1-14. Josiah’s covenant to serve the Lord. Destruction of idolatry, and removal of idolatrous priests (2Ch 34:3-7; 2Ch 34:29-33)
1. And the king sent, and they gathered ] The whole proceeding described in the first three verses of this chapter may be compared with the similar covenant-making in the reign of Joash (2Ki 11:14-17). That was also followed by a destruction of the objects of idolatry.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
2Ki 23:1-28
And the King sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem.
Good aims and bad methods
The verses I have selected record and illustrate good alms and bad methods.
I. Good aims. Josiahs aims, as here presented, Were confessedly high, noble, and good.
1. To reduce his people to a loyal obedience to heaven.
2. Generated within him by the discovery of the Divine will.
II. Bad methods. How did Josiah now seek to realise his purpose, to sweep idolatry from the face of his country? Not by argument, suasion, and moral influence, but by brute force and violence (2Ki 23:4-28). I offer two remarks concerning his method.
1. It was unphilosophic. Morals evil cannot be put down by force; coercion cannot travel to a mans soul.
2. It was mischievous. The evil was not extinguished; it burnt with fiercer flame. Persecution has always propagated the errors it has sought to crush. He that taketh the Sword shall perish by the sword. (David Thomas, D. D.)
A revival of religion
A young and active king now sits on Judahs throne. Our text finds him at the age of six-and-twenty, in the midst of reforms which might have appalled many a man of twice his age. The earlier years of his reign he has occupied in many and various reforms, Now we find him in the midst of a revival of religion, the like of which the world has but seldom seen. The king, the court, the elders, the rulers, and the people all felt its power. Beginning at the house of God, it thrilled through all classes, and changed the whole religious life and thought of the land. And it is this revival of religion that I desire now to consider.
I. This revival began at the house of God. And surely that was the best place. In Gods house, in Gods presence, we are to assemble and look for Him. It is there we may expect the Shekinah fire, no longer visible over the ark between the cherubim, but felt in force and power in human hearts. It is there we must seek for renewed vigour and Divine influence. It is there we must look for the Lord Himself, and pray Him to strengthen and quicken us. It is there we must come for the deepening of our faith in the Eternal, enlarging of our courage and zeal, and the expansion of cur Christian hope. It is there all revival must begin. If, then, we are to have a revival, it must begin at Gods house. Votes of the House of Commons cannot do it, Acts of Parliament will never make men religious. Decrees of State will not fill empty churches with men and women full of the Holy Ghost and fire. All this has been tried. Some two or three hundred years ago soldiers were stationed at the doors of the parish churches, not so much to see who attended as to note who was absent. Fine, imprisonment, exile and worse, fell to the lot of those who did not fill their places. These things did not succeed. They never can. Fine, sword, fire, and persecution failed, and always will. They are the instruments of a past and barbarous age. But if we are to have a revival in which the people shall flock to Gods house, Gods house itself must be revived. There must be live men in the Church, if it is to save men alive. A cold Church but seldom warms cold hearts.
II. In this revival men came back to the word of God. The long-lost book was found. The Word of the Lord hid, slighted, neglected, lost, was discovered and brought to the young king. What a discovery Hilkiah made when he found the Bible! What a treasure he dug up! What a mine of precious ore! What a valuable find! The young king was quick to see its importance, value, and worth. It was read; its warnings heeded, its promises believed. And it was read to all the people. What an effect that book produced. Even so. I have no faith in any revival without the Word of God. Read the history of the great revivals in the Church, and you will find the Word of God in it all. Beginning with the Bereans right down to our day you will find it so. John Wycliffe was a great power in his day. He is rightly called the Morning Star of the Reformation. He Sent his Lollard preachers through the lend to tell the story of Gods love. As he translated the Bible into the language of the people, his preachers went and read it and preached it to common folk. Read the history of the Reformation, and what will you find there? Martin Luther is its hero. That marvellous man, like his Lord and Master, was a son of the people, and began life in a poor and comfortless home. Reared in the faith and practice of the Romish Church, he came to know it well, and early saw its weakness. What was it made him take his reforming action? Have we not read that he found a copy of the Scriptures–the neglected, deserted, forsaken Bible? He read it. It did its work. It was the Bible made him the great reformer. It was the Bible which the reformers accepted as a sufficient rule of faith and life. We, too, need to pay more attention to the living Word of God. We are apt to look for and depend upon the word of man. If that is not eloquent, if that is not such as to tickle our fancy, we often return from Gods house displeased, dissatisfied, and unblessed. What a mistake! Let us look for the God-sent message; let us hearken for the voice of the living God; let us hear what He has to say to us.
III. A revived Church will make itself felt in the world. This assembling at the house of God, and the solemn and reverent reading of the Bible, made a deep impression upon the people. The king dedicated himself to God. And surely that is the right thing for a king to do. The king should lead in all good things. All the people felt the influence, and there was a national movement. Public life was affected, the power of God was felt, men pat away their idols, and came back to the faith of their fathers. The Church, the Temple, religion became a greater force in the national life. (C. Leach, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XXIII
Josiah reads in the temple to the elders of Judah, the priests,
the prophets, and the people, the book of the covenant which
had been found, 1, 2.
He makes a covenant, and the people stand to it, 3.
He destroys the vessels of Baal and Asherah, and puts down the
idolatrous priests; breaks down the houses of the sodomites,
and the high places; defiles Topheth; takes away the horses of
the sun; destroys the altars of Ahaz; breaks in pieces the
images; and breaks down and burns Jeroboam’s altar at Beth-el,
4-15.
Fulfils the word of the prophet, who cried against the altar at
Beth-el, 16-18.
Destroys the high places in Samaria, slays the idolatrous
priests, and celebrates a great passover, 19-23;
and puts away all the dealers with familiar spirits, c., 24.
His eminent character he is mortally wounded at Megiddo, and
buried at Jerusalem, 25-30.
Jehoahaz reigns in his stead, and does evil in the sight of the
Lord, 31, 32.
Is dethroned by Pharaoh-nechoh; and Eliakim, his brother, called
also Jehoiakim, made king in his stead; the land is laid under
tribute by the king of Egypt, and Jehoiakim reigns wickedly,
33-37.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXIII
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The chief governors both of church and state.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-3. the king sent, and theygathered unto him all the eldersThis pious and patriotic king,not content with the promise of his own security, felt, afterHuldah’s response, an increased desire to avert the threatenedcalamities from his kingdom and people. Knowing the richness of thedivine clemency and grace to the penitent, he convened the elders ofthe people, and placing himself at their head, accompanied by thecollective body of the inhabitants, went in solemn procession to thetemple, where he ordered the book of the law to be read to theassembled audience, and covenanted, with the unanimous concurrence ofhis subjects, to adhere steadfastly to all the commandments of theLord. It was an occasion of solemn interest, closely connected with agreat national crisis, and the beautiful example of piety in thehighest quarter would exert a salutary influence over all classes ofthe people in animating their devotions and encouraging their returnto the faith of their fathers.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem. Josiah sent messengers throughout the land, and convened all the principal men in it at Jerusalem.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Instead of resting content with the fact that he was promised deliverance from the approaching judgment, Josiah did everything that was in his power to lead the whole nation to true conversion to the Lord, and thereby avert as far as possible the threatened curse of rejection, since the Lord in His word had promised forgiveness and mercy to the penitent. He therefore gathered together the elders of the nation, and went with them, with the priests and prophets and the assembled people, into the temple, and there had the book of the law read to those who were assembled, and concluded a covenant with the Lord, into which the people also entered. After this he had all the remnants of idolatry eradicated, not only in Jerusalem and Judah, but also in Bethel and the other cities of Samaria, and directed the people to strengthen themselves in their covenant fidelity towards the Lord by the celebration of a solemn passover.
2Ki 23:1-2 Reading of the law in the temple, and renewal of the covenant (cf. 2Ch 34:29-32). Beside the priests, Josiah also gathered together the prophets, including perhaps Jeremiah and Zedekiah, that he might carry out the solemn conclusion of the covenant with their co-operation, and, as is evident from Jer 1-11, that they might then undertake the task, by their impressive preaching in Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, of making the people conscious of the earnestness of the covenant duties which they had so recently undertaken (see Oehler in Herzog’s Cycl.). Instead of the prophets, the Levites are mentioned in the Chronicles, probably only because the Levites are mentioned along with the priests in other cases of a similar kind. , he read, i.e., had it read; for the duty of reading the law in the temple devolved upon the priests as the keepers of the law (Deu 31:9.).
2Ki 23:3 The king stood , as in 2Ki 11:14. For see 2Ki 11:17. , i.e., he bound himself solemnly to walk after the Lord, that is to say, in his walk to follow the Lord and keep His commandments (see at 1Ki 2:3). – … , all the people entered into the covenant (Luther and others); not perstitit, stood firm, continued in the covenant (Maurer, Ges.), which would be at variance with Jer 11:9-10; Jer 25:3., and other utterances of the prophets.
2 Kings 23:4-20 The eradication of idolatry. – According to 2Ch 34:3-7, this had already begun, and was simply continued and carried to completion after the renewal of the covenant.
2Ki 23:4-14 In Jerusalem and Judah. 2Ki 23:4. The king commanded the high priest and the other priests, and the Levites who kept the door, to remove from the temple everything that had been made for Baal and Asherah, and to burn it in the valley of Kidron. , sacerdotes secundi ordinis (Vulg., Luth., etc.), are the common priests as distinguished from , the high priest. The Rabbins are wrong in their explanation vicarii summi sacerdotis , according to which Thenius would alter the text and read for . , the keepers of the threshold, are the Levites whose duty it was to watch the temple, as in 2Ki 22:4 (cf. 1Ch 23:5). ( alles Zeug , Luth.), i.e., all the apparatus, consisting of altars, idols, and other things, that had been provided for the worship of Baal and Astarte. Josiah had these things burned, according to the law in Deu 7:25, and that outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron valley. The (fields of Kidron) are probably to be sought for to the north-east of Jerusalem, where the Kidron valley is broader than between the city and the Mount of Olives, and spreads out into a basin of considerable size, which is now cultivated and contains plantations of olive and other fruit-trees (Rob. Pal. i. p. 405). “And he had their dust carried to Bethel,” i.e., the ashes of the wooden objects which were burned, and the dust of those of stone and metal which were ground to powder, to defile the idolatrous place of worship at Bethel as the chief seat of idolatry and false worship.
2Ki 23:5 “He abolished the high priests.” are also mentioned in Hos 10:5 and Zec 1:4: they were not idolatrous priests or prophets of Baal, but priests whom the kings of Judah had appointed to offer incense upon the altars of the high places; for they are distinguished from the idolatrous priests, or those who burnt incense to Baal, the sun, etc. In Hos 10:5 the priests appointed in connection with the golden calf at Bethel are called ; and in Zep 1:4 the are not exclusively idolatrous priests, but such as did service sometimes for Jehovah, who had been degraded into a Baal, and sometimes to actual idols. Now as who burnt incense upon high places are also mentioned in 2Ki 23:8, we must understand by the non-Levitical priests, and by the in 2Ki 23:8 Levitical priests who were devoted to the worship on the high places. The primary signification of is disputed. In Syriac the word signifies the priest, in Hebrew spurious priests, probably from in the sense of to bring together, or complete, as the performers of sacrifice, like , the sacrificer (Dietr.); whereas the connection suggested by Hitzig (on Zeph.) with (Arabic) kfr , to be unbelieving, in the opposite sense of the religious, is very far-fetched, and does not answer either to the Hebrew or the Syriac use of the word.
(Note: In any case the derivation from , to be black (Ges. Thes. p. 693), and the explanation given by Frst from vi occultandi magicasque, h. e. arcanas et reconditas artes exercendi, and others given in Iden ‘ s Dissertatt. theol. philol. i. diss. 12, are quite untenable.)
The singular is striking, inasmuch as if the imperf. c. Vav rel. were a continuation of , we should expect the plural, “and who had burnt incense,” as it is given in the Chaldee. The lxx, Vulg., and Syr. have rendered , from which has probably arisen by a mistake in copying. In the following clause, “and those who had burnt incense to Baal, to the sun and to the moon,” etc., Baal is mentioned as the deity worshipped in the sun, the moon, and the stars (see at 2Ki 21:3). , synonymous with in Job 38:32, does not mean the twenty-eight naxatra, or Indian stations of the moon,
(Note: According to A. Weber, Die vedischen Nachrichten von den naxatra, in the Abhandlungen der Berl. Acad. d. Wiss. 1860 and 1861. Compare, on the other hand, Steinschneider, Hebr. Bibliographie, 1861, No. 22, pp. 93, 94, his article in the Deutsch. morgld. Zeitschrift, 1864, p. 118ff.)
but the twelve signs or constellations of the zodiac, which were regarded by the Arabs as menazil , i.e., station-houses, in which the sun took up its abode in succession when describing the circuit of the year (cf. Ges. Thes. p. 869, and Delitzsch on Job 38:32).
2Ki 23:6 The image of Asherah ( = , 2Ki 21:3, 2Ki 21:7), which Manasseh placed in the temple and then removed after his return from Babylon (2Ch 33:15), but which Amon had replaced, Josiah ordered to be burned and ground to powder in the valley of Kidron, and the dust to be thrown upon the graves of the common people. , from , to make fine, to crush, refers to the metal covering of the image (see at Exo 32:10). Asa had already had an idol burned in the Kidron valley (1Ki 15:13), and Hezekiah had ordered the idolatrous abominations to be taken out of the city and carried thither (2Ch 29:16); so that the valley had already been defiled. There was a burial-place there for , i.e., the common people (cf. Jer 26:23), who had no graves of their own, just as at the present day the burial-ground of the Jews there lies to the north of Kefr Silwn. Josiah ordered the ashes to be cast upon these graves, probably in order to defile them as the graves of idolaters.
2Ki 23:7 , the houses (places of abode) of the paramours (for see at 1Ki 14:24), were probably only tents or huts, which were erected in the court of the temple for the paramours to dwell in, and in which there were also women who wove tent-temples ( ) for Asherah (see at 2Ki 17:30).
(Note: On this worship Movers has the following among other remarks ( Phn. i. p. 686): “ The mutilated Gallus ( ) fancies that he is a woman: negant se viros esse … muleires se volunt credi (Firmic.). He lives in close intimacy with the women, and they again are drawn towards the Galli by peculiar affection. ” He also expresses a conjecture “ that the women of Jerusalem gave themselves up in honour of the goddess in the tents of the Galli which were pitched in the temple circle, on which account the went to the temple treasury. ” )
2Ki 23:8 All the (Levitical) priests he sent for from the cities of Judah to Jerusalem, and defiled the altars of the high places, upon which they had offered incense, from Geba to Beersheba, i.e., throughout the whole kingdom. Geba, the present Jeba, about three hours to the north of Jerusalem (see at Jos 18:24), was the northern frontier of the kingdom of Judah, and Beersheba ( Bir-seba: see the Comm. on Gen 21:31) the southern frontier of Canaan. It is evident from 2Ki 23:9 that are Levitical priests. He ordered them to come to Jerusalem, that they might not carry on illegal worship any longer in the cities of Judah. He then commanded that the unlawful high places should be defiled throughout the whole land, for the purpose of suppressing this worship altogether. He also destroyed “the altars of the high places at the gates, (both that) which was at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, (and also that) which was at the left of every one (entering) by the city gate.” The two clauses beginning with contain a more precise description of . The gate of Joshua the governor of the city is not mentioned anywhere else, but it was probably near to his home, i.e., near the citadel of the city; but whether it was the future gate of Gennath, as Thenius supposes, or some other, it is impossible to determine. This also applies to the opinion that is the valley gate or Joppa gate (Thenius) as being the gate of greatest traffic; for the traffic through the northern or Ephraim gate was certainly not less. , at the left of every one, sc. going into the city.
2Ki 23:9 “Only the priests of the high places did not sacrifice, … but ate unleavened bread in the midst of their brethren.” The is connected with 2Ki 23:8: Josiah did not allow the priests, whom he had brought out of the cities of Judah to Jerusalem, to offer sacrifice upon the altar of Jehovah in the temple, i.e., to perform the sacrificial service of the law, though he did allow them “to eat that which was unleavened,” i.e., to eat of the sacred altar-gifts intended for the priests (Lev 6:9-10 and Lev 6:22); only they were not allowed to consume this at a holy place, but simply in the midst of their brethren, i.e., at home in the family. They were thus placed on a par with the priests who were rendered incapable of service on account of a bodily defect (Lev 21:17-22).
2Ki 23:10 He also defiled the place of sacrifice in the valley of Benhinnom, for the purpose of exterminating the worship of Moloch. Moloch’s place of sacrifice is called , as an object of abhorrence, or one to be spat at ( : Job 17:6), from , to spit, or spit out (cf. Roediger in Ges. thes. p. 1497, where the other explanations are exploded).
(Note: Jerome (on Jer 7:31) says: Thophet, quae est in valle filiorum Enom, illum locum significat, qui Silo fontibus irrigatur et est amoenus atque nemorosus, hodieque hortorum praebet delicias . From the name Gehinnom the Rabbins formed the name , Gehenna (Mat 5:22, Mat 5:29, etc.), with special reference to the children burnt here to Moloch, to signify hell and hell-fire.)
On the valley Bne or Ben-hinnom, at the south side of Mount Zion, see at Jos 15:8.
2Ki 23:11 He cleared away the horses dedicated to the sun, and burned up the chariots of the sun. As the horses were only cleared away ( ), whereas the chariots were burned, we have not to think of images of horses (Selden, de Diis Syr. ii. 8), but of living horses, which were given to the sun, i.e., kept for the worship of the sun. Horses were regarded as sacred to the sun by many nations, viz., the Armenians, Persians, Massagetae, Ethiopians, and Greeks, and were sacrificed to it (for proofs see Bochart, Hieroz. i. lib. ii. c. 10); and there is no doubt that the Israelites received this worship first of all from Upper Asia, along with the actual sun-worship, possibly through the Assyrians. “The kings of Judah” are Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon. These horses were hardly kept to be offered to the sun in sacrifice (Bochart and others), but, as we must infer from the “chariots of the sun,” were used for processions in connection with the worship of the sun, probably, according to the unanimous opinion of the Rabbins, to drive and meet the rising sun. The definition , “from the coming into the house of Jehovah,” i.e., near the entrance into the temple, is dependent upon , “they had given (placed) the horses of the sun near the temple entrance,” , “in the cell of Nethanmelech.” does not mean at the cell, i.e., in the stable by the cell (Thenius), because the ellipsis is too harsh, and the cells built in the court of the temple were intended not merely as dwelling-places for the priests and persons engaged in the service, but also as a dept for the provisions and vessels belonging to the temple (Neh 10:38.; 1Ch 9:26). One of these depts was arranged and used as a stable for the sacred horses. This cell, which derived its name from Nethanmelech, a chamberlain ( ), of whom nothing further is known, possibly the builder or founder of it, was , in the Pharvars. , the plural of , is no doubt identical with in 1Ch 26:18. This was the name given to a building at the western or hinder side of the outer temple-court by the gate Shalleket at the ascending road, i.e., the road which led up from the city standing in the west into the court of the temple (1Ch 26:16 and 1Ch 26:18). The meaning of the word is uncertain. Gesenius ( thes. p. 1123) explains it by porticus, after the Persian frwar , summer-house, an open kiosk. Bttcher ( Proben, p. 347), on the other hand, supposes it to be “a separate spot resembling a suburb,” because in the Talmud signifies suburbia, loca urbi vicinia .
2Ki 23:12 The altars built upon the roof of the aliyah of Ahaz were dedicated to the host of heaven (Zep 1:5; Jer 19:13; Jer 32:29), and certainly built by Ahaz; and inasmuch as Hezekiah had undoubtedly removed them when he reformed the worship, they had been restored by Manasseh and Amon, so that by “the kings of Judah” we are to understand these three kings as in 2Ki 23:11. We are unable to determine where the , the upper chamber, of Ahaz really was. But since the things spoken of both before and afterwards are the objects of idolatry found in the temple, this aliyah was probably also an upper room of one of the buildings in the court of the temple (Thenius), possibly at the gate, which Ahaz had built when he removed the outer entrance of the king into the temple (2Ki 16:18), since, according to Jer 35:4, the buildings at the gate had upper stories. The altars built by Manasseh in the two courts of the temple (see 2Ki 21:5) Josiah destroyed, , “and crushed them to powder from thence,” and cast their dust into the Kidron valley. yaarots, not from , to run, but from , to pound or crush to pieces. The alteration proposed by Thenius into , he caused to run and threw = he had them removed with all speed, is not only arbitrary, but unsuitable, because it is impossible to see why Josiah should merely have hurried the clearing away of the dust of these altars, whereas , to pound or grind to powder, was not superfluous after , to destroy, but really necessary, if the dust was to be thrown into the Kidron. is substantially equivalent to in 2Ki 23:6.
2Ki 23:13-14 The places of sacrifice built by Solomon upon the southern height of the Mount of Olives (see at 1Ki 11:7) Josiah defiled, reducing to ruins the monuments, cutting down the Asherah idols, and filling their places with human bones, which polluted a place, according to Num 19:16. 2Ki 23:14 gives a more precise definition of in 2Ki 23:13 in the form of a simple addition (with Vav cop.). , mountain of destruction (not unctionis = , Rashi and Cler.), is the southern peak of the Mount of Olives, called in the tradition of the Church mons offensionis or scandali (see at 1Ki 11:7). For and see at 1Ki 14:23. are the places where the Mazzeboth and Asherim stood by the altars that were dedicated to Baal and Astarte, so that by defiling them the altar-places were also defiled.
2Ki 23:15-20 Extermination of idolatry in Bethel and the cities of Samaria. – In order to suppress idolatry as far as possible, Josiah did not rest satisfied with the extermination of it in his own kingdom Judah, but also destroyed the temples of the high places and altars and idols in the land of the former kingdom of the ten tribes, slew all the priests of the high places that were there, and burned their bones upon the high places destroyed, in order to defile the ground. The warrant for this is not to be found, as Hess supposes, in the fact that Josiah, as vassal of the king of Assyria, had a certain limited power over these districts, and may have looked upon them as being in a certain sense his own territory, a power which the Assyrians may have allowed him the more readily, because they were sure of his fidelity in relation to Egypt. For we cannot infer that Josiah was a vassal of the Assyrians from the imprisonment and release of Manasseh by the king of Assyria, nor is there any historical evidence whatever to prove it. The only reason that can have induced Josiah to do this, must have been that after the dissolution of the kingdom of the ten tribes he regarded himself as the king of the whole of the covenant-nation, and availed himself of the approaching or existing dissolution of the Assyrian empire to secure the friendship of the Israelites who were left behind in the kingdom of the ten tribes, to reconcile them to his government, and to win them over to his attempt to reform; and there is no necessity whatever to assume, as Thenius does, that he asked permission to do so of the newly arisen ruler Nabopolassar. For against this assumption may be adduced not only the improbability that Nabopolassar would give him any such permission, but still more the circumstance that at a still earlier period, even before Nabopolassar became king of Babylon, Josiah had had taxes collected of the inhabitants of the kingdom of Israel for the repairing of the temple (2Ch 34:9), from which we may see that the Israelites who were left behind in the land were favourably disposed towards his reforms, and were inclined to attach themselves in religious matters to Judah (just as, indeed, even the Samaritans were willing after the captivity to take part in the building of the temple, Ezr 4:2.), which the Assyrians at that time were no longer in a condition to prevent.
2Ki 23:15 “Also the altar at Bethel, the high place which Jeroboam had made-this altar also and the high place he destroyed.” It is grammatically impossible to take as an accusative of place (Thenius); it is in apposition to , serving to define it more precisely: the altar at Bethel, namely the high place; for which we have afterwards the altar and the high place. By the appositional the altar at Bethel is described as an illegal place of worship. “He burned the ,” i.e., the buildings of this sanctuary, ground to powder everything that was made of stone or metal, i.e., both the altar and the idol there. This is implied in what follows: “and burned Asherah,” i.e., a wooden idol of Astarte found there, according to which there would no doubt be also an idol of Baal, a of stone. The golden calf, which had formerly been set up at Bethel, may, as Hos 10:5-6 seems to imply, have been removed by the Assyrians, and, after the settlement of heathen colonists in the land, have been supplanted by idols of Baal and Astarte (cf. 2Ki 17:29).
2Ki 23:16-18 In order to desecrate this idolatrous site for all time, Josiah had human bones taken out of the graves that were to be found upon the mountain, and burned upon the altar, whereby the prophecy uttered in the reign of Jeroboam by the prophet who came out of Judah concerning this idolatrous place of worship was fulfilled; but he spared the tomb of that prophet himself (cf. 1Ki 13:26-32). The mountain upon which Josiah saw the graves was a mountain at Bethel, which was visible from the bamah destroyed. , a sepulchral monument, probably a stone erected upon the grave. : “so they rescued (from burning) his bones (the bones of the prophet who had come from Judah), together with the bones of the prophet who had come from Samaria,” i.e., of the old prophet who sprang from the kingdom of the ten tribes and had come to Bethel (1Ki 13:11). in antithesis to ot sisehtit denotes simply descent from the land of Samaria.
(Note: 2Ki 23:16-18 are neither an interpolation of the editor, i.e., of the author of our books of Kings (Staehelin), nor an interpolation from a supplement to the account in 1 Kings 13:1-32 (Thenius). The correspondence between the in 2Ki 23:15 and the in 2Ki 23:18 does not require this assumption; and the pretended discrepancy, that after Josiah had already reduced the altar to ruins (2Ki 23:15) he could not possibly defile it by burning human bones upon it (2Ki 23:16), is removed by the very natural solution, that in 2Ki 23:16 does not mean the altar itself, but the site of the altar that had been destroyed.)
2Ki 23:19-20 All the houses of the high places that were in the (other) cities of Samaria Josiah also destroyed in the same way as that at Bethel, and offered up the priests of the high places upon the altars, i.e., slew them upon the altars on which they had offered sacrifice, and burned men’s bones upon them (the altars) to defile them. The severity of the procedure towards these priests of the high places, as contrasted with the manner in which the priests of the high places in Judah were treated (2Ki 23:8 and 2Ki 23:9), may be explained partly from the fact that the Israelitish priests of the high places were not Levitical priests, but chiefly from the fact that they were really idolatrous priests.
2Ki 23:21-23 The passover is very briefly noticed in our account, and is described as such an one as had not taken place since the days of the judges. 2Ki 23:21 simply mentions the appointment of this festival on the part of the king, and the execution of the king’s command has to be supplied. 2Ki 23:22 contains a remark concerning the character of the passover. In 2 Chron 35:1-19 we have a very elaborate description of it. What distinguished this passover above every other was, (1) that “all the nation,” not merely Judah and Benjamin, but also the remnant of the ten tribes, took part in it, or, as it is expressed in 2Ch 35:18, “all Judah and Israel;” (2) that it was kept in strict accordance with the precepts of the Mosaic book of the law, whereas in the passover instituted by Hezekiah there were necessarily many points of deviation from the precepts of the law, more especially in the fact that the feast had to be transferred from the first month, which was the legal time, to the second month, because the priests had not yet purified themselves in sufficient numbers and the people had not yet gathered together at Jerusalem, and also that even then a number of the people had inevitably been allowed to eat the passover without the previous purification required by the law (2Ch 30:2-3, 2Ch 30:17-20). This is implied in the words, “for there was not holden such a passover since the days of the judges and all the kings of Israel and Judah.” That this remark does not preclude the holding of earlier passovers, as Thenius follows De Wette in supposing, without taking any notice of the refutations of this opinion, was correctly maintained by the earlier commentators. Thus Clericus observes: “I should have supposed that what the sacred writer meant to say was, that during the times of the kings no passover had ever been kept so strictly by every one, according to all the Mosaic laws. Before this, even under the pious kings, they seem to have followed custom rather than the very words of the law; and since this was the case, many things were necessarily changed and neglected.” Instead of “since the days of the judges who judged Israel,” we find in 2Ch 35:18, “since the days of Samuel the prophet,” who is well known to have closed the period of the judges.
2Ki 23:24-25 Conclusion of Josiah’s reign. – 2Ki 23:24. As Josiah had the passover kept in perfect accordance with the precepts of the law, so did he also exterminate the necromancers, the teraphim and all the abominations of idolatry, throughout all Judah and Jerusalem, to set up the words of the law in the book of the law that had been found, i.e., to carry them out and bring them into force. For and see at 2Ki 21:6. , penates , domestic gods, which were worshipped as the authors of earthly prosperity and as oracular deities (see at Gen 31:19). and , connected together, as in Deu 29:16, as a contemptuous description of idols in general. – In 2Ki 23:25 the account of the efforts made by Josiah to restore the true worship of Jehovah closes with a general verdict concerning his true piety. See the remarks on this point at 2Ki 18:5. He turned to Jehovah with all his heart, etc.: there is an evident allusion here to Deu 6:5. Compare with this the sentence of the prophet Jeremiah concerning his reign (Jer 22:15-16).
2Ki 23:26 Nevertheless the Lord turned not from the great fierceness of His wrath, wherewith He had burned against Judah on account of all the provocations “with which Manasseh had provoked Him.” With this sentence, in which forms an unmistakeable word-play upon , the historian introduces the account not merely of the end of Josiah’s reign, but also of the destruction of the kingdom of Judah. Manasseh is mentioned here and at 2Ki 24:3 and Jer 15:4 as the person who, by his idolatry and his unrighteousness, with which he provoked God to anger, had brought upon Judah and Jerusalem the unavoidable judgment of rejection. It is true that Josiah had exterminated outward and gross idolatry throughout the land by his sincere conversion to the Lord, and by his zeal for the restoration of the lawful worship of Jehovah, and had persuaded the people to enter into covenant with its God once more; but a thorough conversion of the people to the Lord he had not been able to effect. For, as Clericus has correctly observed, “although the king was most religious, and the people obeyed him through fear, yet for all that the mind of the people was not changed, as is evident enough from the reproaches of Jeremiah, Zephaniah, and other prophets, who prophesied about that time and a little after.” With regard to this point compare especially the first ten chapters of Jeremiah, which contain a resum of his labours in the reign of Josiah, and bear witness to the deep inward apostasy of the people from the Lord, not only before and during Josiah’s reform of worship, but also afterwards. As the Holy One of Israel, therefore, God could not forgive any more, but was obliged to bring upon the people and kingdom, after the death of Josiah, the judgment already foretold to Manasseh himself (2Ki 21:12.).
2Ki 23:27-28 The Lord said: I will also put away Judah (in the same manner as Israel: cf. 2Ki 17:20, 2Ki 17:23) from my face, etc. expresses the divine decree, which was announced to the people by the prophets, especially Jeremiah and Zephaniah.
2Ki 23:29-30 Compare 2Ch 35:20-24. The predicted catastrophe was brought to pass by the expedition of Necho the king of Egypt against Assyria. “In his days (i.e., towards the end of Josiah’s reign) Pharaoh Necho the king of Egypt went up against the king of Asshur to the river Euphrates.” Necho ( or , 2Ch 35:20; Jer 46:2; called by Josephus, Manetho in Jul. Afric., and Euseb., after the lxx; and by Herod. ii. 158,159, iv. 42, and Diod. Sic. i. 33; according to Brugsch, hist. d’Eg. i. p. 252, Nekou) was, according to Man., the sixth king of the twenty-sixth (Saitic) dynasty, the second Pharaoh of that name, the son of Psammetichus I and grandson of Necho I; and, according to Herodotus, he was celebrated for a canal which he proposed to have cut in order to connect the Nile with the Red Sea, as well as for the circumnavigation of Africa (compare Brugsch, l.c., according to whom he reigned from 611 to 595 b.c.). Whether “the king of Asshur” against whom Necho marched was the last ruler of the Assyrian empire, Asardanpal ( Sardanapal), Saracus according to the monuments (see Brandis, Ueber den Gewinn, p. 55; M. v. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs, pp. 110ff. and 192), or the existing ruler of the Assyrian empire which had already fallen, Nabopolassar the king of Babylon, who put an end to the Assyrian monarchy in alliance with the Medes by the conquest and destruction of Nineveh, and founded the Chaldaean or Babylonian empire, it is impossible to determine, because the year in which Nineveh was taken cannot be exactly decided, and all that is certain is that Nineveh had fallen before the battle of Carchemish in the year 606 b.c. Compare M. v. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs, pp. 109ff. and 203, 204. – King Josiah went against the Egyptian, and “he (Necho) slew him at Megiddo when he saw him,” i.e., caught sight of him. This extremely brief notice of the death of Josiah is explained thus in the Chronicles: that Necho sent ambassadors to Josiah, when he was taking the field against him, with an appeal that he would not fight against him, because his only intention was to make war upon Asshur, but that Josiah did not allow himself to be diverted from his purpose, and fought a battle with Necho in the valley of Megiddo, in which he was mortally wounded by the archers. What induced Josiah to oppose with force of arms the advance of the Egyptian to the Euphrates, notwithstanding the assurance of Necho that he had no wish to fight against Judah, is neither to be sought for in the fact that Josiah was dependent upon Babylon, which is at variance with history, nor in the fact that the kingdom of Judah had taken possession of all the territory of the ancient inheritance of Israel, and Josiah was endeavouring to restore all the ancient glory of the house of David over the surrounding nations (Ewald, Gesch. iii. p. 707), but solely in Josiah’s conviction that Judah could not remain neutral in the war which had broken out between Egypt and Babylon, and in the hope that by attacking Necho, and frustrating his expedition to the Euphrates, he might be able to avert great distress from his own land and kingdom.
(Note: M. v. Niebuhr ( Gesch. Ass. p. 364) also calls Josiah ‘ s enterprise “ a perfectly correct policy. Nineveh was falling (if not already fallen), and the Syrian princes, both those who had remained independent, like Josiah, and also the vassals of Asshur, might hope that, after the fall of Nineveh, they would succeed in releasing Syria from every foreign yoke. Now well-founded this hope was, is evident from the strenuous exertions which Nabukudrussur was afterwards obliged to make, in order to effect the complete subjugation of Syria. It was therefore necessary to hinder at any price the settlement of the Egyptians now. Even though Necho assured Josiah that he was not marching against him (2Ch 35:21), Josiah knew that if once the Egyptians were lords of Coele-Syria, his independence would be gone. ” )
This battle is also mentioned by Herodotus (ii. 159); but he calls the place where it was fought , i.e., neither Migdol, which was twelve Roman miles to the south of Pelusium (Forbiger, Hdb. d. alten Geogr. ii. p. 695), nor the perfectly apocryphal Magdala or Migdal Zebaiah mentioned by the Talmudists (Reland, Pal. p. 898,899), as Movers supposes. We might rather think with Ewald ( Gesch. iii. p. 708) of the present Mejdel, to the south-east of Acca, at a northern source of the Kishon, and regard this as the place where the Egyptian camp was pitched, whereas Israel stood to the east of it, at the place still called Rummane, at Hadad-Rimmon in the valley of Megiddo, as Ewald assumes ( Gesch. iii. p. 708). But even this combination is overthrown by the face that Rummane, which lies to the east of el Mejdel at the distance of a mile and three-quarters (geogr.), on the southern edge of the plain of Buttauf, cannot possibly be the Hadad-Rimmon mentioned in Zec 12:11, where king Josiah died after he had been wounded in the battle. For since Megiddo is identical with the Roman Legio, the present Lejun, as Robinson has proved (see at Jos 12:21), and as is generally admitted even by C. v. Raumer ( Pal. p. 447, note, ed. 4), Hadad-Rimmon must be the same as the village of Rmmuni ( Rummane), which is three-quarters of an hour to the south of Lejun, where the Scottish missionaries in the year 1839 found many ancient wells and other traces of Israelitish times (V. de Velde, R. i. p. 267; Memoir, pp. 333, 334). But this Rummane is four geographical miles distant from el Mejdel, and Mediggo three and a half, so that the battle fought at Megiddo cannot take its name from el Mejdel, which is more than three miles off. The Magdolon of Herodotus can only arise from some confusion between it and Megiddo, which was a very easy thing with the Greek pronunciation , without there being any necessity to assume that Herodotus was thinking of the Egyptian Migdol, which is called Magdolo in the Itin. Ant. p. 171 (cf. Brugsch, Geogr. Inschriften altgypt. Denkmler, i. pp. 261,262). If, then, Josiah went to Megiddo in the plain of Esdrelom to meet the king of Egypt, and fell in with him there, there can be no doubt that Necho came by sea to Palestine and landed at Acco, as des Vignoles ( Chronol. ii. p. 427) assumed.
(Note: This is favoured by the account in Herodotus (ii. 159), that Necho built ships: … ( triremes in septentrionale et australe mare mittendas . Bhr) – ; from which we may infer that Necho carried his troops by sea to Palestine, and then fought the battle on the land. M. v. Niebuhr ( Gesch. p. 365) also finds it very improbable that Necho used his fleet in this war; but he does not think it very credible “ that he embarked his whole army, instead of marching them by the land route so often taken by the Egyptian army, the key of which, viz., the land of the Philistines, was at least partially subject to him, ” because the (ships of burden) required for the transport of a large army were hardly to be obtained in sufficient numbers in Egypt. But this difficulty, which rests upon mere conjecture, is neutralized by the fact, which M. Duncker ( Gesch. i. p. 618) also adduces in support of the voyage by sea, namely, that the decisive battle with the Jews was fought to the north-west of Jerusalem, and when the Jews were defeated, the way to Jerusalem stood open for their retreat. Movers ( Phniz. ii. 1, p. 420), who also imagines that Necho advanced with a large land-army towards the frontier of Palestine, has therefore transferred the battle to Magdolo on the Egyptian frontier; but he does this by means of the most arbitrary interpretation of the account given by Herodotus.)
For if the Egyptian army had marched by land through the plain of Philistia, Josiah would certainly have gone thither to meet it, and not have allowed it to advance into the plain of Megiddo without fighting a battle.
2Ki 23:30 The brief statement, “his servants carried him dead from Megiddo and brought him to Jerusalem,” is given with more minuteness in the Chronicles: his servants took him, the severely wounded king, by his own command, from his chariot to his second chariot, and drove him to Jerusalem, and he died and was buried, etc. Where he died the Chronicles do not affirm; the occurrence of after the words “they brought him to Jerusalem,” does not prove that he did not die till he reached Jerusalem. If we compare Zec 12:11, where the prophet draws a parallel between the lamentation at the death of the Messiah and the lamentation of Hadad-Rimmon in the valley of Megiddo, as the deepest lamentation of the people in the olden time, with the account given in 2Ch 35:25 of the lamentation of the whole nation at the death of Josiah, there can hardly be any doubt that Josiah died on the way to Jerusalem at Hadad-Rimmon, the present Rummane, to the south of Lejun (see above), and was taken to Jerusalem dead. – He was followed on the throne by his younger son Jehoahaz, whom the people ( , as in 2Ki 21:24) anointed king, passing over the elder, Eliakim, probably because they regarded him as the more able man.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Josiah Destroys Idolatry. | B. C. 623. |
1 And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem. 2 And the king went up into the house of the LORD, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the LORD. 3 And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant.
Josiah had received a message from God that there was no preventing the ruin of Jerusalem, but that he should deliver only his own soul; yet he did not therefore sit down in despair, and resolve to do nothing for his country because he could not do all he would. No, he would do his duty, and then leave the event to God. A public reformation was the thing resolved on; if any thing could prevent the threatened ruin it must be that; and here we have the preparations for that reformation. 1. He summoned a general assembly of the states, the elders, the magistrates or representatives of Judah and Jerusalem, to meet him in the house of the Lord, with the priests and prophets, the ordinary and extraordinary ministers, that, they all joining in it, it might become a national act and so be the more likely to prevent national judgments; they were all called to attend (2Ki 23:1; 2Ki 23:2), that the business might be done with the more solemnity, that they might all advise and assist in it, and that those who were against it might be discouraged from making any opposition. Parliaments are no diminution at all to the honour and power of good princes, but a great support to them. 2. Instead of making a speech to this convention, he ordered the book of the law to be read to them; nay, it should seem, he read it himself (v. 2), as one much affected with it and desirous that they should be so too. Josiah thinks it not below him to be a reader, any more than Solomon did to be a preacher, nay, and David himself to be a door-keeper in the house of God. Besides the convention of the great men, he had a congregation of the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to hear the law read. It is really the interest of princes to promote the knowledge of the scriptures in their dominions. If the people be but as stedfastly resolved to obey by law as he is to govern by law, the kingdom will be happy. All people are concerned to know the scripture, and all in authority to spread the knowledge of it. 3. Instead of proposing laws for the confirming of them in their duty, he proposed an association by which they should all jointly engage themselves to God, v. 3. The book of the law was the book of the covenant, that, if they would be to God a people, he would be to them a God; they here engage themselves to do their part, not doubting but that then God would do his. (1.) The covenant was that they should walk after the Lord, in compliance with his will, in his ordinances and his providences, should answer all his calls and attend all his motions–that they should make conscience of all his commandments, moral, ceremonial, and judicial, and should carefully observe them with all their heart and all their soul, with all possible care and caution, sincerity, vigour, courage, and resolution, and so fulfil the conditions of this covenant, in dependence upon the promises of it. (2.) The covenanters were, in the first place, the king himself, who stood by his pillar (ch. xi. 14) and publicly declared his consent to this covenant, to set them an example, and to assure them not only of his protection but of his presidency and all the furtherance his power could give them in their obedience. It is no abridgment of the liberty even of princes themselves to be in bonds to God. All the people likewise stood to the covenant, that is, they signified their consent to it and promised to abide by it. It is of good use to oblige ourselves to our duty with all possible solemnity, and this is especially seasonable after notorious backslidings to sin and decays in that which is good. He that bears an honest mind does not shrink from positive engagements: fast bind, fast find.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Kings – Chapter 23 AND Second Chronicles – Chapter 34 (Cont’d)
Covenanting with God Commentary on 2Ki 23:1-3 AND 2Ch 34:29-33
King Josiah did not resign himself to the inevitable decree of God, that judgment must fall on Judah for their sins irrevocably. The king knew the graciousness and mercy of God and His readiness to lift the sentence of judgment against those who would repent (see Jon 4:2; Exo 34:6-7). He determined to do all within his royal power to reverse the downward trend of Judah and save them from destruction. He began by gathering the elders from throughout the kingdom, with all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
They met in the temple, where the king stood by one of the pillars to address the convention. The priests and prophets were made a special part of the meeting also. The king read to them the “book of the covenant.”
This is a very strong intimation that the book which had been lost was the fifth of the Pentateuch, that of Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, chapters 29 and 30, Moses delivered to Israel what is called the Palestinian Covenant. It is not the same covenant as that called the Mosaic Covenant, which included the ten commandments (De 29:1), but was “beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.” It was the covenant whereby the Lord would bless Israel in the land of Canaan (Palestine). It stated what He expected of them and warned them of His certain judgment for their disobedience.
It was Josiah’s purpose, to have the people of Judah and Jerusalem renew the covenant. He took the initiative and bound himself with all his heart and soul to keep all the commandments, testimonies, and statutes demanded by the covenant. The Kings account concludes, “And all the people .stood to the covenant.” However, the Chronicles account indicates that there may have been a great deal of coercion on the part of the king to gain the agreement of the people to renew the covenant.
There is not the spontaneous response which occurred in the days of Hezekiah, when the people turned back to the Lord (2Ch 29:36).
Josiah proceeded to put feet to his vow by renewing his campaign to eradicate all idolatry and cultism from the kingdom. Not content with that he also extended it to all countries where he had power. This included the former northern kingdom, which as has been seen, was mostly forgotten by the Assyrian conquerors while they struggled against powerful enemies out of the east.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE DESTRUCTION OF IDOLATRY BY JOSIAH
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
2Ki. 23:1. The king sent and gathered all the elders of JudahNot content to hide from coming ill under Gods promise of immunity to himself personally, Josiahs patriotism led him to a fervent effort to recall his nation to the Lord, and turn aside impending doom.
2Ki. 23:6. He brought out the grove from the house of the Lord (see on 2Ki. 21:7). Cast the powder thereof on the graves of the children of the peopleIn 2Ch. 34:4 it is rendered, upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto them, thus profaning the sepulchres of those idolaters.
2Ki. 23:7. He brake down the houses of the SodomitesConcerning these Sodomites see Notes on 1Ki. 14:24. These booths were scenes of lustful revelry; these women who wove hangings for Asherah, being debased creatures, who, together with others of their sex, prostituted themselves in homage of this goddess. All this in the house of the Lord.
2Ki. 23:9. Did eat of the unleavened breadThe phrase means that they lived upon the altar offerings; they came not near Gods altar, but stayed at home enjoying the fruit of their profession among their brethren.
2Ki. 23:10. He defiled TophethThe spot in the valley of Hinnon where children were sacrificed to Molech. Tophet is variously interpreted, as from to spit out, detest, an abomination, therefore; or from , a drum, the dominating interpretation of Jewish writers being that the cries of the perishing children were drowned by that instrument.
2Ki. 23:11. Took away the horsesNot figures of horses, but living, kept for drawing the sun-chariot in the idolatrous processions. Horses were also sacrificed in the worship of the sun.
2Ki. 23:13. On the right hand of the mount of corruptionThe hilly range on the east of Jerusalem, called the Mount of Olives, has three summits, whose central or southernmost peak is named the Mount of Corruption. from the idol temples there reared by Solomon.
2Ki. 23:15. Altar that was at BethelIn Samaria; so that he traversed the land to sweep away every vestige of idolatry.
NoteA literal and remarkable fulfilment of prophecy at BethelAgainst that very altar at Bethel, where the guilty Jeroboam burned odious idolatrous incense, a man of God, 326 years before Josiahs birth, came forth and cried, O, altar, altar! thus saith the Lord, Behold a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name, and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and mens bones shall be burnt upon thee (see the narrative 1Ki. 13:1-8). No more emphatic verification of prophecy is contained in Scripture.
2Ki. 23:21-23. The revival of the passover festivalNot only were the kings own subjects called to this august celebration of this most sacred festival, but many of the remnant of Israel also came to the solemnity (see 2Ch. 35:18); not even Hezekiahs celebration of this feast was so complete and imposing as that of Josiah.
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 23:1-24
CHARACTERISTICS OF A GREAT RELIGIOUS REFORM
I. It is suggested by a clearer understanding of the Divine Word (2Ki. 23:1). Josiah had begun his reforming work before the discovery of the law, but when he read the very words of God his views were expanded, and his zeal newly inflamed concerning the work he had to do. The effect on the king was like that produced on Luther by his finding an old Latin Bible in the library of the Augustine convent at Erfurt. In both cases, the character and life-work of the reformers were irresistibly influenced by what they read. The best and loftiest work we do, is that which is inspired and sustained by our study of the Divine Word. It is the light and teacher for all time.
A glory gilds the sacred page
Majestic, like the sun;
It gives a light to every age;
It gives, but borrows none.Cowper.
II. It seeks to interest and, by solemn covenant, secure the co-operation of all classes of the community (2Ki. 23:1-2). All genuine reform must be based on intelligence. The people Josiah sought to benefit he sought first to instruct. Too much publicity cannot be given to principles which threaten to change the existing order of things. If they will not bear the light of day, and the freest public criticism, they are unworthy our adherence. Josiah set the example. It was a striking scenethe more highly dramatic because so utterly unconsciousto see the youthful king publicly entering into solemn covenant to obey the Divine commands. The people followed. In the East, whatever the king initiates and champions, the people readily accept. The broader and more searching the reform, the more important is it to interest all classes and engage all legitimate agencies. The most gigantic efforts of the reformer would be fruitless if unsupported by public opinion. He is shrewd enough to see that the first thing he has to do is to mould and educate public opinion. Hume once observed, All power, even the most despotic, rests ultimately on opinion.
III. It aims at the utter destruction of the system, with all its degrading practices, that had led the people astray (2Ki. 23:4-20; 2Ki. 23:24). Josiah attacked the idolatry of his kingdom with a promptness, zeal, and vigour that amounted almost to fierceness. The evil must be torn out, root and branch. The high places, the images, the vessels, were not only broken in pieces, but defiled, and their ashes scattered on the stream to be borne away for ever. The reformer warmed to his work, and grew fiercer still. He slew the idolatrous priests. He violated the graves of the dead, and burnt their bones on the altar. The reformer became a persecutor. Judging Josiah from the standard of his times, much might be said in palliation of this violence. Idolatry was the oppressive curse under which his kingdom lay crushed. As a theocratic king, he could admit no rival to Jehovah; idolatry must be utterly stamped out. Much may be forgiven a man for the excesses into which he may be betrayed in the heat of his reforming zeal. But no reforming work can be permanently advantaged by violence and persecution. Tyranny never cures tyranny; it only provokes endless reprisals.
IV. It restores the pure worship of God in its most imposing features (2Ki. 23:21-23). The festival of the Passover was held on an unexampled scale of magnificence and publicity, and in a faithful adhesion to the minute details required by the Divine law that had not been recognized for years. The iconoclastic reformer should be careful to have something to put in place of what he destroys. Man will worship, and every facility should be afforded him in keeping up fellowship with the Highest and Holiest, else he will seek inferior and degrading objects of worship, as did the Hebrews. We must not mistake the reverent and decorous observance of an elaborate ritual for true worship. Acceptable worship must be intelligent, sincere, and spiritual. If a person were to attend the levee of an earthly prince every court day, and pay his obeisance punctually and respectfully, but at other times speak and act in opposition to his sovereign, the king would justly deem such an one a hypocrite and an enemy. Nor will a solemn and stated attendance on the means of grace in the House of God prove us to be Gods children and friends.Salter.
LESSONS:
1. A genuine reformer regulates his zeal by sound discretion.
2. It is difficult to avoid excesses in carrying out great reforms.
3. The best reforms are those suggested and carried out by the teachings and spirit of the Divine Word.
4. It is an unspeakable gain to the moral life and power of a nation when the true God is better known and worshipped.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki. 23:1-3. The public reading of Gods Word.
1. An important and time-honoured institutioninstructing the ignorant, and being a testimony to all.
2. A serious loss and injury to a people where neglected.
3. Worthy of the most careful study to do it with efficiency.
4. Stimulates the formation of the best resolves towards God and His service.
This pious and patriotic king, not content with the promise of his own security, felt, after Huldahs response, an increased desire to avert the threatened calamities from his kingdom and people. Knowing the richness of the Divine clemency and grace to the penitent, he convened the elders of the people, and, placing himself at their head, accompanied by the collective body of the inhabitants, went in solemn procession to the temple, where he ordered the book of the law to be read to the assembled audience, and covenanted, with the unanimous concurrence of his subjects, to adhere steadfastly to all the commandments of the Lord. It was an occasion of solemn interest, closely connected with a great national crisis, and the beautiful example of piety in the highest quarter would exert a salutary influence over all classes of the people, in animating their devotions and encouraging their return to the faith of their fathers.Jamieson.
2Ki. 23:1. Instructed by the law and by the prophetess, the king does rest in security, feeling that the evil will not come in his day, but takes immediate measures to instruct the people in the law, and to destroy idolatry throughout the land.
2Ki. 23:2. Woe be to them that hide Gods book from the people, as they would do ratsbane from the eyes of children! Ignorant souls cannot perish without their murder. There is no fear of knowing too much; there is too much fear of practising too little.Bp. Hall.
2Ki. 23:4-24. A violent persecution like that of Manasseh must have produced terror, bitterness, stubborn though concealed opposition, and a relentless purpose, on the part of those who had all the law and traditions of their nation, together with patriotism, on their side and who could compare with pride the moral purity of their religion with those abominations of heathenism which were shocking and abhorrent to the simplest instincts of human nature, to repay their persecutors at the first opportunity. Where those abominations were the only religious observances taught, education might avail to make them pass without protest; but where there was any, even a slight, knowledge of a purer religion and a better morality, the protest could never entirely die out. The Jehovah religion was, as compared with heathen things, austere. It warred against the base passions of men and the vices which they produce. Heathenism therefore seemed to represent enjoyment of life, while the Jehovah religion seemed to repress pleasure. It is remarkable that a boy-king should have chosen the latter. Judaism certainly had intolerance as one of its fundamental principles. Violence in the support of the Jehovah-religion was the duty of a Jewish king. In attempting to account for and understand the conduct of Josiah, it would be senseless to expect him to see and practise toleration, as to expect him to use fire-arms against Necho. We can never carry back modern principles into ancient times, and judge men by the standards of to-day.Lange.
2Ki. 23:4. The Kedron winds along the east and south of the city, the channel of which is, throughout a large portion of the year, almost or wholly dry, except after heavy rains, when it suddenly swells and overflows. There were emptied all the impurities of the temple (2Ch. 29:15-16) and the city. His reforming predecessors had ordered the mutilated relics of idolatry to be thrown into that place of graves and receptacle of filth (1Ki. 15:13; 2Ch. 15:16; 2Ch. 30:14); but Josiah, while he imitated their piety, far outstripped them in zeal, for he caused the ashes of the burnt wood, and the fragments of the broken metal, to be collected and conveyed to Bethel, in order thenceforth to associate ideas of horror and aversion with that place, as odious for the worst pollutions.
2Ki. 23:7. Sin
1. Has depths of infamy which the beginner would shudder to contemplate.
2. Finds its readiest and most zealous votaries in idolators.
3. Reigns supreme when God is abandoned.
4. Can be cured only by being thoroughly rooted out.
2Ki. 23:8. The gate of Joshua, the governor of the city.A great man, but none of the best. He had a good name; but Josiah might have said to him, as Alexander did to a soldier of his own name, but a coward, Either change thy name, or put on more courage; so, more piety.Trapp.
2Ki. 23:11. And burned the chariots of the sun.Chrysostom saith that Peter, for his zeal, was like a man made all of fire walking among stubble. Josiah was surely so. Angelomus saith, that herein he represented Christ, who, by the fire of the last day, shall destroy all impiety, and not suffer any defiled one to enter into his kingdom.Ibid.
2Ki. 23:14. Every monument of idolatry in his dominions was in like manner destroyed, and the places where they stood he defiled by strewing them with dead mens bones. The presence of a dead carcase rendered both persons and places unclean in the eyes both of Jews and heathens.Jamieson.
He was resolved to make a hand with them all. We may give peace to buy truth, but we may not give truth to buy peace.Trapp.
2Ki. 23:15-16. The unerring certitude of the Divine word.l. Its threats and promises are faithfully and minutely fulfilled.
2. The flux of time strengthens rather than weakens its authority350 years had elapsed since the prophecy was uttered.
3. The instrument of accomplishing the Divine word may himself be unconscious of itJosiah was more intent in destroying idolatry than in fulfilling a Divine prediction.
2Ki. 23:15. His zeal as a theocratic sovereign was specially directed against the high places reared and consecrated by Israelitish monarchs in all the Samaritan cities, as being indications of the same spirit of disloyalty to Jehovah which the policy of Jeroboam had inaugurated at Bethel and at Dan. But the altar at Bethel which had been sumptuously and elaborately fitted up in the Egyptian style of architecture, and at which the worship of the golden calf was performed with a splendour that rivalled or surpassed the pure ritual celebrated at Jerusalem, was the special object of his abhorrence, both on account of its vicinity to his own kingdom, and the outrage which its establishment, on a spot hallowed by the memory of the patriarch Jacob, inflicted on the feelings of all the pious in Judah.Jamieson.
2Ki. 23:16. Intervention of time breaks no square in the Divine decrees; our purblind eyes see nothing but that which touches their lids; the quick sight of Gods prescience sees that, as present, which is a world off.Bp. Hall.
2Ki. 23:17. Compare with 1 Kings 13. Lessons from an old tombstone. As we stand by the sepulchre of the man of God, many admonitory lessons press themselves home upon us.
I. That the path of duty is the way of safety. So long as the man of God continued in the path of duty, he was safe. The anger of the king and his command to the bystanders could not harm him a whit. No moral or spiritual danger will befall us if we continue in the path which God marks out for us. They that be with us are more than they that be with them.
II. That the path of duty is the path of power. So long as the man of God was faithful in the discharge of his duty, he had great moral influence. When King Jeroboams hand withered and his arm became rigid, he had no faith either in his false god, or in the priests who were sacrificing to him. Entreat the Lord for me, cried the frightened, horror-stricken king. So it is still. The good man may be persecuted and ridiculed, but often it is seen that the devout man, who continues, despite all trials, the even tenor of his way, is requested to intercede with God on behalf of those who would have harmed him. But power is lost the moment the good man departs from the right way.
III. The danger of tarrying upon forbidden ground. The command to the man of God was clear and decisive. He must so appear before the false priests of Jeroboam and deliver his message, and leave the place, that his appearance and disappearance may be startling in their suddenness. He must not return by the same way that he went. But he lingered in the way not far from Bethel. He was upon dangerous ground, and the temptation presented by his seducer was fitted to his physical need and circumstances, as all strong temptation is. He yielded, and we know his fate. Banyan very quaintly says, after Christian and Hopeful wandered from the right path and found themselves in Doubting Castle, So I saw it was easier going out of the way when in, than going in when out.
IV. The fearful crime of an enlightened man ruining another. The old prophet might take up the corpse of the disobedient man of God and attend to its interment, and mourn over him, saying, Alas, my brother! but he could not bring back again the lost life. He might charge his sons to bury him with the men of God, adding that the prediction which had been uttered would certainly be fulfilled; but this made no atonement, no separation. The man who will ruin another is a baser man than he who will ruin himself. And be it that this act of disobedience on the part of the man of God was a sin unto the death of the body onlyas perhaps the entire context warrantsyet little did he think, when he journeyed from Judah, that he would never return again; and that being entrusted with such a message, and charged with such responsibilities, he should fail in part. Let him, therefore, who stands by his sepulchre, remember the judgment which arrested the man of God, and he will find another illustration of the need of heeding the warning, Let him that assuredly standeth, take heed lest he fall.Hom. Quarterly.
This is one of the most remarkable prophecies contained in the Bible. Had the prediction referred to the entire suppression of idolatry throughout the kingdom of Israel, and its reunion with that of Judah in the common celebration of national worship at Jerusalem, the spirit of patriotism would assuredly have kept alive the remembrance of the announcement both in the court and throughout the country, making a consummation so devoutly to be wished the favourite and distinguishing policy of the best kings. But the demolition of the single altar at Bethel was too limited an enterprise, too trivial an act, to stimulate the ambition of a Jewish king, or to continue a subject of interest in the councils of his cabinet; and hence the prophecy seems to have fallen into comparative neglect or oblivion. But not one jot nor tittle of the Divine word ever fails to be fulfilled. God chooses his own time, as well as his own accomplishments of His providential purposes; and although no king of Judah before Manasseh had an opportunity of passing the confines of his kingdom; although Manasseh, with Amon, had not, probably, the slightest knowledge of the prophecy, and was influenced solely by motives of humble penitence and devout gratitude for his own temporal and spiritual deliverance in bestowing the name of Josiah upon his grandson; he was unconsciously, but by an unseen overruling power, led to do what verified the word of the Lord which the man of God proclaimed to Jeroboam, regarding the overthrow of the altar at Bethel.Jamieson.
2Ki. 23:21-24. The building up of a new life must follow upon the eradication of sin. The Passover cannot be celebrated until all the old leaven is removed. The Passover was the feast with which each new year begun; we also have a Passover or Easter lamb (1Co. 5:7-8). The festivals and fasts are the framework of the common life of the congregation; where they are neglected this life is decaying. If Israel had kept up the celebration of its appointed feast, it would never have fallen so low.Lange.
2Ki. 23:24. The Bible and reform.
1. The Bible exposes the dangers and abuses of all false systems.
2. Supplies clear and authoritative ideas of what is right, and the most powerful motives to act up to those ideas.
3. Demands that all efforts of reform shall be thorough and complete.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
E. THE COVENANT RENEWED 23:13
TRANSLATION
(1) And he sent and gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. (2) And the king went up to the house of the LORD and all the men of Judah and all the Inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests and the prophets and all the people both small and great; and he read in their presence all the words of the book of the covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD. (3) And the king stood upon the platform, and made the covenant before the LORD to walk after the LORD, and to keep His commandments, His testimonies, and His statutes with all their heart and with all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant which was written in this book. And all the people stood in the covenant.
COMMENTS
After receiving the word from Huldah that the threats in the recently discovered law-book would shortly be fulfilled, the first action of the king was to call a great assembly of the nation. The elders of the nation were officially summoned (2Ki. 23:1). However a great host of men of all classes of society also attended, including representatives of the priests and prophets. In the courts of the Temple the king read or caused to be read the book which had been discovered. AH the words of the book of the covenant were read to the assembly (2Ki. 23:2). The entire Pentateuch could scarcely be read through in less than ten hours. For this reason many scholars feel that the book which is referred to here is Deuteronomy. However, the reading of the entire Pentateuch cannot be ruled out entirely.
Standing upon the platform (not pillar as in KJV) the king made or renewed the old covenant with God which had been broken during the grossly wicked reigns of Manasseh and Amon. He renewed this covenant before the Lord, i.e., the platform upon which he was standing was directly opposite the entrance to the Temple. The king pledged to obey from the heart the totality of the Law of Moses. To this commitment the representatives of the people gave their assent and thus became parties to the covenant (2Ki. 23:3).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XXIII.
JOSIAH RENEWS THE COVENANT, ROOTS OUT IDOLTARY, AND HOLDS A SOLEMEN PASSOVER.HIS END.
(1) They gathered.The right reading is probably that of the Syriac and Vulg., there gathered. Chron., LXX., and Arabic have he gathered.
All the elders.The representatives of the nation.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE GREAT REFORMATION UNDER JOSIAH, 2Ki 23:1-25.
1. The king sent Instructed by the law and by the prophetess, the king does not rest in security, feeling that the evil will not come in his day, but takes immediate measures to instruct the people in the law, and to destroy idolatry throughout the land.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Reading Of The Law And The Making Of The Covenant ( 2Ki 23:1-5 ).
2Ki 23:1
‘And the king sent, and they gathered to him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem.’
Deeply moved by the words of Huldah the prophetess the king sent and gathered to him ‘all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem’. This was preparatory to calling the whole congregation of Judah together. 2Ki 23:21 would suggest that Passover was approaching and it would seem that the opportunity was to be taken to combine that in some way with a covenant ceremony in which a covenant would be made before YHWH, and the words of the book of the covenant would be read out. As Passover came fourteen days after the commencement of the religious new year on 1st of Nisan this may suggest that the covenant ceremony took place at the new year, prior to the Passover.
Note the distinction between the elders of Jerusalem and the elders of Judah. As the city of David Jerusalem was administratively separate from Judah. In Jerusalem the king had direct authority and could act as he wished, in Judah he had to consider local custom and respect the authority of the elders of Judah, the princes and the tribal aristocrats.
2Ki 23:2
‘And the king went up to the house of YHWH, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great, and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of YHWH.’
All the men of Judah having arrived in Jerusalem in response to the summons of their elders, the king went up to the house of YHWH. And with him went all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, together with the priests and the prophets, ‘and all the people both small and great’, for a great covenant ceremony. This was a gathering of the ancient ‘congregation of Israel’ and the ceremony can be compared with that held by Moses in Exo 24:3-8, and those held by Joshua in Jos 8:33-35; Jos 24:1-28, one at the beginning and the other at the end of the initial ‘conquest’ of the land. Note how in Exo 24:7 ‘Moses — took the book of the covenant and read in the audience of the people’, and how in Jos 8:34-35 ‘Joshua — read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded which Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women and the little ones and the strangers who were conversant among them’. And it should also be noted in the latter case that ‘the book of the Law’ included both the command in Exo 20:25-26 (see Jos 8:31) and ‘the blessing and the curse’ of Deu 11:26; Deu 30:1 (see Jos 8:34). Thus it was more than just a part of Deuteronomy. Furthermore Moses had commanded that ‘this Law’ be read to the people every seven years at the Feast of Tabernacles (Deu 31:9-13).
We have in the above instances an indication of how the people were used to the idea of having ‘the whole Law’ read to them, and indeed Joshua made clear that none of it was omitted, and that in his case it certainly included at the very least a part of Exodus and a part of Deuteronomy as we know them today. Thus when Josiah read in their ears all the words of ‘the book of the covenant which was found in the house of YHWH’ this would include all the Law records known in his time. (This would be expected by them no matter how long it took)
The description ‘the book of the covenant’ appears elsewhere only in Exo 24:7 where it indicated at a minimum Exo 20:1 to Exo 23:33, and possibly Exodus 19 as well. Here it refers to the book found in the Temple, which was described as such because it was seen as underpinning the covenant with YHWH. Had it not been considered that this book covered the whole covenant, including Exodus 20-23, other records of the covenant used at covenant feasts would surely also have been included. (It would be foolish to argue that up to this time Judah, YHWH’s covenant people, who laid such an emphasis on the Ark of the covenant, and on YHWH’s covenant with their fathers, had no records of such a covenant at all. See for example 2Ki 17:13-15; and consider 1Ki 2:3 ; 1Ki 8:58; 1Ki 9:4 etc. which assume such records). Thus in our view this ‘book of the Law’ must be seen as containing the whole of the recognised covenant, that is, the whole of the Book of the Law of Moses.
2Ki 23:3
‘And the king stood by the pillar, and made a covenant before YHWH, to walk after YHWH, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and all his soul, to confirm the words of this covenant that were written in this book, and all the people stood to the covenant.’
Then the king stood by the royal pillar (compare 2Ki 11:14), a pillar which by tradition was connected with the Davidic house. This may have been one of the two pillars erected by Solomon (1Ki 7:15), or some other special pillar in the Temple recognised by custom as the king’s pillar. It was where kings stood to make official decrees, and there he made a covenant ‘before YHWH’ (before the Sanctuary and as in His presence) to walk after YHWH and to keep His commandments, and testimonies, and statutes, as they had come down to them from the past in the Law of Moses (compare 1Ki 2:3 ; 1Ki 8:58; 1Ki 9:4; etc) with all his heart and with all his soul (compare 2Ki 23:25; Deu 4:29; Deu 6:5; Deu 10:12; etc: Jos 22:5; Jos 23:14 ; 1Ki 2:4; 1Ki 8:48). He thereby firmly confirmed the covenant that was found in ‘this book’, and the people then themselves confirmed their part in it. To ‘stand to the covenant’ was probably recognised legal jargon indicating full acceptance and commitment.
2Ki 23:4
‘And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order (i.e. next in rank), and the keepers of the threshold, to bring forth out of the temple of YHWH all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the Asherah, and for all the host of heaven, and he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron, and carried the ashes of them to Beth-el.’
As a ritual seal on the covenant the leading priests (compare Jer 52:24) were then called on to bring out all the vessels within the Temple that had been used in false worship so that they could be burned outside Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, after which their ashes were carried to Bethel to be disposed of, probably in order to defile the altar set up by Jeroboam I (compare 1Ki 13:2). Whether Bethel was under Josiah’s jurisdiction at this time (which it probably was) is irrelevant. All that mattered was that they had access to it.
That it was only the vessels which were brought out at this stage emphasises the fact that all the more obnoxious symbols of idolatry must have been removed already, otherwise they would have been the first to be brought out. It suggests that the vessels were the last thing to remain, probably kept on one side for some suitable time when they could be used to express an aversion for idolatry. So while what then follows was an essential part of his reforms, what is described is not to be seen as taking place in chronological order, as though it followed the above. It is rather to be seen as a full description of all Josiah’s reforms, some of which had already taken place, but placed between the making of the covenant and its sealing at the Passover so as to bring out that even the earlier reforms had been in accordance with the covenant and the Law.
Kidron was the place where Asa had previously burned defiling effigies (1Ki 15:13; compare 2Ki 23:6 below and see 2Ch 29:16; 2Ch 30:14 under Hezekiah), and was clearly a place marked down for such activity, being already defiled by what Asa had done. Importantly it was outside Jerusalem so that Jerusalem would not be defiled by the activity.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Ki 23:15 Moreover the altar that was at Bethel, and the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, both that altar and the high place he brake down, and burned the high place, and stamped it small to powder, and burned the grove.
2Ki 23:16 2Ki 23:15-16
1Ki 13:1-2, “And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men’s bones shall be burnt upon thee.”
2Ki 23:29-30 Comments – The Battle of Carchemish – A ancient clay tablet in cuneiform text tells, among other things, of the Battle of Carchemish (a famous battle that took place in 605 B.C. where Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh for world supremacy), the accession to the throne of Nebuchadnezzar II, the Chaldean, and the capture of Jerusalem on the sixteenth day of March, 589 B.C. Regarding this capture, the clay tablet reads:
“Year 7 (598/597 bce): in Kislev the king of Babylonia called out his army and marched to Hattu [Syria/Palestine]. He set his camp against the city of Judah [ Ya-a-u-du ] and on 2nd Adar [16th March] he took the city and captured the king [Jehoiachin]. He appointed a king [Zedekiah] of his choosing there, took heavy tribute and returned to Babylon.” [72]
[72] William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., Context of Scripture, vol. 1 (Leiden; Brill, 2000), In Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004, 468.
2Ki 23:31-34 The Reign of Jehoahaz Over Judah (609 B.C.) 2Ki 23:31-34 records the account of the reign of Jehoahaz over Judah.
2Ki 23:35 to 2Ki 24:7 The Reign of Jehoiakim Over Judah (609-598 B.C.) 2Ki 23:35 to 2Ki 24:7 records the account of the reign of Jehoiakim over Judah.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Covenant Renewed
v. 1. And the king sent, v. 2. And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, v. 3. And the king stood by a pillar, v. 4. And the king commanded Hilkiah, the high priest, and the priests of the second order, v. 5. And be put down the idolatrous priests, v. 6. And he brought out the grove from the house of the Lord, v. 7. And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, v. 8. And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, v. 9. Nevertheless, the priests of the high places, v. 10. And he, v. 11. And he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, v. 12. And the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz, v. 13. And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the Mount of Corruption, v. 14. And he brake in pieces the images, v. 15. Moreover, the altar that was at Bethel, v. 16. And as Josiah turned himself, v. 17. Then he said, What title is that that I see? v. 18. And he, v. 19. And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, v. 20. And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Ki 23:1-37
JOSIAH‘S RENEWAL OF THE COVENANT. HIS REFORMS AND DEATH. REIGN OF JEHOAHAZ. ACCESSION OF JEHOIAKIM.
2Ki 23:1-3
Josiah‘s renewal of the covenant. The first care of Josiah, on receiving Huldah’s message, which stamped the book found as the true “book of the covenant,” was to call together a great assembly of the nation, which should be sufficiently representative of it, and renew the covenant between God and his people made originally at Horeb (Exo 19:5-8; Exo 24:3-8), which it was apparent, by the words of the book, that he and his people had broken. His proceedings may be fitly compared with those of Jehoiada, the high priest after the reign of the idolatrous Athaliah, recorded in 2Ki 11:17; but they were still more formal and solemn, inasmuch as the recent alienation of the people from Jehovah had been so much more prolonged, and so much more complete, than the alienation under Athaliah.
2Ki 23:1
And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem; i.e. all the elders of Jerusalem and of the rest of Judah. (On the important position held by “the elders” in the undivided kingdom, see 1Ki 8:1, and the comment ad loc.; and on their position in the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah, see 1Ki 20:7, 1Ki 20:8; 1Ki 21:8, 1Ki 21:11; 2Ki 10:1, etc.)
2Ki 23:2
And the king went up into the house of the Lord. No place could be so suitable for the renewal of the covenant between God and his people as the house of God, where God was in a peculiar way present, and the ground was, like the ground at Horeb, holy. Josiah “went up” to the temple from the royal palace, which was on a lower level. And all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him. Not only the “elders,” who had been summoned, but of the people, as many as chose to attend, besides. The gathering was no doubt great; but the expressions used are (as with the Orientals generally) hyperbolical. And the priests, and the prophets. The representation would have been incomplete without these two classesthe priests, the ordinary and regular readers (Deu 31:11) and teachers (Deu 33:10) of the Law; and the prophets, the extraordinary and occasional teachers, inspired from time to time, and commissioned to enforce the Law, and futile to declare God’s will to the people. And all the people, both small and great; i.e. without distinction of classesall ranks of the people, high and low, rich and poor, noble and base-born. All were concerned, nay, concerned equally, in a matter which touched the national life and the prospects of each individual. And he read in their ears. There is no reason for translating, with Keil, “he caused to be read in their ears,” as though either the Jewish kings could not read, or would be usurping the functions of the priests in publicly reading the Law to the people. If a king might, like Solomon (1Ki 8:22-61), lead the prayers of the congregation of Israel in the temple, much more might he read the Law to them. The readers in the Jewish synagogues are ordinarily lay people. All the words of the book of the covenant. Perhaps there is here some exaggeration, as in the phrases, “all the men of Judah,” and “all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” The entire Pentateuch could scarcely be read through in less than ten hours. Possibly, the Book of Deuteronomy was alone read. Which was found in the house of the Lord (see above, 2Ki 22:8).
2Ki 23:3
And the king stood by a pillar is not “by the pillar,” but (as in 2Ki 11:14) “on the platform” (see the comment on that place)and made a covenant before the Lord; literally, made the covenant (as in 2Ki 11:17); i.e. made, or renewed, the old covenant with God (Exo 24:5-8), which had been broken by the complete neglect of the Law, and the manifold idolatries of Manasseh and Amon. He renewed this covenant “before the Lord,” i.e. from his platform in the court, directly opposite the entrance to the temple, through which he could, perhaps, see the veil hanging in front of the holy of holies-at any rate being, and feeling himself to be, in the immediate presence of God. To walk after the Lordi.e. to be his true follower and servantand to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes. (On the multiplication of such terms, see the comment upon 1Ki 2:3.) They are intended to express “the totality of the Law,” all its requirements without exception. With all their heart and all their soulobedience was worthless, unless paid from the heart and soul (see Deu 4:29; Deu 30:2; Joe 2:12, Joe 2:13)to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant. The representatives of the people, one and all, were parties to the premise made on their behalf by the king, and signified their consent, probably as they had done in Horeb, when “Moses took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people; and they said, All that the Lord has said will we do, and be obedient” (see Deu 24:7).
2Ki 23:4-27
Josiah‘s reformation of religion. The reformation of religion by Josiah next engages the writer’s attention, and is treated, not chronologically, but rather gee-graphically, under the three heads of
(1) reforms in Jerusalem;
(2) reforms outside Jerusalem, but in the kingdom of Judah; and
(3) reforms in the territory which had belonged to the kingdom of Samaria (2Ki 23:4-20).
The celebration of the Passover is then briefly noticed (2Ki 23:21-25); and the section concludes with a eulogy of Josiah (2Ki 23:24, 2Ki 23:25), who, however, it is noticed could not, with all his piety, obtain a revocation of the sentence passed on Judah in consequence of the sins of Manasseh. The fate of Judah was fixed (verses 26, 27).
2Ki 23:4
And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order. Not the “deputy-high priests,” of whom there seems to have been only one at this period of the history (2Ki 25:18); nor the “heads of the courses,” who were not recognized as a distinct class of priests till much later; but merely the common priests, as distinguished from the high priest. (So Keil, Bahr, and others.) And the keepers of the door; literally, the keepers of the threshold; i.e. the Levites, whose duty it was to keep watch and ward at the outer temple gates (see 1Ch 26:13-18). Their importance at this time appears again in 2Ki 25:18. To bring forth out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels that were made for Baal. The reformation naturally began with the purging of the temple. So the reformation under Jehoiada (2Ki 11:18) and that of Manasseh (2Ch 33:15). Under “the vessels” () would be included the entire paraphernalia of worship, even the two altars which had been set up in honor of Baal in the outer and the inner courts. And for the grove (see 2Ki 21:3), and for all the host of heaven. The three worships are here united, because there was a close connection between them. Baal was, in one of his aspects, the sun; and Astarte, the goddess of the “grove” wet-ship, was, in one of her aspects, the moon. The cult of “the host of heaven,” though, perhaps, derived from a different source, naturally became associated with the cults of the sun and moon. And he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron. The Law required that idols should be burnt with fire (Deu 7:25), and likewise “groves” (Deu 12:3). It was enough to “overthrow” altars (Deu 12:3) and to “break” pillars. But Josiah seems to have thought it best to destroy by fire, i.e. in the completest possible way, all the objects, of whatever kind, which had been connected with the idol-worship (see verses 6, 12, 15, 16). The burning took place in “the fields of Kidron,” i.e. in the upper part of the Kidron valley, to the northeast of Jerusalem, in order that not even the smoke should pollute the town. And carried the ashes of them unto Bethel. This was a very unusual precaution, and shows Josiah’s extreme scrupulousness. He would not have even the ashes of the wooden objects, or the calcined powder of the metal ones, remain even in the vicinity of the holy city, but transported them to a distance. In selecting Bethel as the place to convey them to, he was no doubt actuated by the circumstance that that village was in some sense the fount and origin of all the religious impurities which had overflowed the land. That which had proceeded from Bethel might well be taken back thither.
2Ki 23:5
And he put down the idolatrous priests; literally, the chemarim. The same word is used of idolatrous priests in Hos 10:5 and Zep 1:4. It is best connected with the Arabic root chamar, colere deum, and with the Syriac cumro, “priest” or “sacrificer.” The Syrian priests were probably so called at the time, and the Hebrews took the word, and applied it to all false priests or idolatrous priests, reserving their own cohanim () for true Jehovistic priests only. Whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem. This practice had not been mentioned previously, and can scarcely have belonged to the earlier kingdom of Judah, when “the people” (as we are told so often) “worshipped and burnt incense in the high places.” But it is quite in harmony with the other doings of Manasseh and Amen, that, when they re-established the high places (2Ki 21:3, 2Ki 21:21), they should have followed the custom of the Israelite monarchs at Dan and Bethel (1Ki 12:28-32), and have “ordained priests” to conduct the worship at them. Them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon (on the Baal-worship of Manasseh and Amen, see 2Ki 21:3; on the sun-worship, compare below, 2Ki 21:11; the moon-worship was probably a form of the worship of Astarte), and to the planets; rather, to the twelve signs. The constellations or signs of the zodiac are, no doubt, intended. The proper meaning of the term is “mansions;” or “houses,” the zodiacal signs being regarded as the “mansions of the sun” by the Babylonians. And to all the host of heaven (see the comment on 2Ki 21:3).
2Ki 23:6
And he brought out the grove from the house of the Lord. The Asherah set up by Manasseh (2Ki 21:3 and 2Ki 21:7), and if removed (2Ch 33:15), then replaced by Amon (2Ch 33:22), is intended. (On its probable form, see the comment upon 2Ki 21:7.) Without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron (see the comment on verse 4), and burned it at the brook Kidron. After the example of Asa, who had treated in the same way the idol of the queen-mother Maachah (1Ki 15:13). Asa followed the example of Moses (Exo 32:20), when he destroyed the golden calf. And stamped it small to powder. Metals may be calcined by intense heat, and reduced into a state in which a very small application of force will crush them into a fine powder. It is clear from the present passage, that Manasseh’s Asherah was made of metal, at any rate in part. And cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people; i.e. “upon the graves of the common people” (comp. Jer 26:23, where the expression used in the Hebrew is the same). The common people were not buried, like the better sort, in rock-hewn sepulchers, but in graves of the ordinary description. Burial-places were regarded as unclean, and were thus fit receptacles for any kind of impurity.
2Ki 23:7
And he brake down the houses of the sodomites; literally, of the consecrated ones. (See the comment on 1Ki 14:24; and note that the male prostitutes, or Galli, who consecrated themselves to the Des Syra, formed an essential element in the Astarte-worship, and accompanied it wherever it was introduced.) Dollinger says of these wretched persons, “To the exciting din of drums, flutes, and inspired songs, the Galli cut themselves on the arms; and the effect of this act, and of the music accompanying it, was so strong upon mere spectators, that all their bodily and mental powers were thrown into a tumult of excitement, and they too, seized by the desire to lacerate themselves, deprived themselves of their manhood by means of potsherds lying ready for the purpose. Thereupon they ran with the mutilated part through the city, and received from the houses which they threw them into, a woman’s gear. Not chastity, but barrenness, was intended by the mutilation. In this the Galli only desired to be like their goddess. The relation of foul lust, which they thenceforward occupied towards women, was regarded as a holy thing, and was tolerated by husbands in their wives.” That were by the house of the Lord. The near vicinity is an indication that the Galli took part in the foreign rites introduced into the temple by Manasseh and Amon. The awful profanation of the house of God by such orgies is too terrible to dwell on. Where the women wove hangings for the grove. “The women” are no doubt the priestesses of the Dea Syra, who are constantly mentioned with the Galli, and, indeed, lived with them. They employed themselves, among other occupations, in weaving “hangings” (literally, “houses,” i.e. “coverings”) for the Asherah. It may be gathered from Eze 16:16 that these “coverings” were dainty fabrics of many colors.
2Ki 23:8
And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah. Here the writer diverges from his proper subjectthe reforms in and near Jerusalemto speak of changes which were made in other parts of Judaea. The Levitical priests, who in various cities of Judah had conducted the worship at the high places, were summoned to Jerusalem by Josiah, and forced to remain there, that the unauthorized worship which they had conducted might be brought to an end. And defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense. Hezekiah had “removed the high places, and broken the images, and cut down the groves” throughout his dominions (2Ki 18:4), but he had not in any way “defiled the high places;” and therefore no sooner did a king take a different view of his duties than the worship was at once restored (2Ki 21:3), and flourished as before. Josiah conceived the idea that, if the high places were “defiled,” it would be impossible to renew the worship at them. From Geba to Beersheba. Geba takes here the place of Bethel as the northern limit of Judah. It was situated at a very short distance from Bethel, and was made to supersede it on account of the idolatries by which Bethel had been disgraced. The exact site is probably the modern Jeba, on the southern edge of the Wady Suweinit. And brake down the high places of the gates. The high-place worship had, it would seem, invaded Jerusalem itself. In some of the gates of the city, which were “large open buildings for public meetings and intercourse” (Bahr), altars, or more elaborate places of worship, had been established, and an unauthorized ritual of the high-place type had been set up. That wererather, that which wasin the entering in of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city. This and the succeeding clauses are limitations of the general statement concerning the “high places of the gates,” and indicate that two gates only had been polluted by high-place worship, viz. “the gate of Joshua,” and the gale known as “the city gate.” Neither of these can be determinately fixed, since they are only mentioned in the present passage. Which were on a man’s left hand at the gate of the city; rather, and also that which was on the left-hand side in the gate of the city. (So Thenius, Keil, and Bahr.)
2Ki 23:9
Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. Though Josiah recalled to Jerusalem the Levitical priests who had recently been attached to the various high places, yet he did not attach them to the temple, or assign them any part in its services. Their participation in a semi-idolatrous service had disqualified them for the temple ministrations. But they did eat of the unleavened bread among their brethren. They were allowed, i.e; their maintenance out of the priestly revenues, as were priests disqualified by a personal blemish (Le 2Ki 21:21, 2Ki 21:22). Practically they lived on the altar gifts intended for the priests (Le 2Ki 6:9, 2Ki 6:10, 2Ki 6:22), in which it was unlawful to mix leaven.
2Ki 23:10
And he defiled Topheth. “To-pheth” or “Tophet” was the name given to the place in the valley of Hinnom where the sacrifices were offered to Moloch. The root of the word is thought by some to be taph (), “a drum,” because the cries of the children burnt there were drowned by the beating of drums. Others suggest as the root, tuph (), “to spit,” because the place was “spat at” by the orthodox. But Gesenius and Bottcher derive it from an Aryan root, taph, or tap, “to burn,” whence Greek , Latin tepidus, Mod. Persian taftan, Sanskrit tap, etc; and regard the meaning as simply “the place of burning” (see the comment on Isa 30:33). Which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom. The valley of Hinnom, or of the sons of Hinnom, is generally allowed to be that which sweeps round the more western of the two hills whereon Jerusalem was built, in a direction at first south and then east, uniting itself with the Kidron valley a little to the south of Ophel. The origin of the name is uncertain; but it is most likely that the Beni-Hinnom were a tribe of Canaanites, settled on this side of Jerusalem in the time of Joshua (Jos 15:8). The “valley” is a ravine, deep and narrow, with steep, rocky sides. When the Moloch-worship first began in it we cannot say; but it was probably before the time of Solomon, who built a high place for Moloch (1Ki 11:11), on one of the heights by which the valley is enclosed. (On the horrible profanations of the Moloch-worship, see Jer 7:31, Jer 7:32; Jer 19:4-13; Jer 32:35.) After the Captivity, the valley of HinnomGe-Hinnomwas reckoned an accursed and abominable place, a sort of earthly counterpart of the place of final punishment, which. thence derived its name of “Geheuna” (); (see Mat 5:22, Mat 5:29, etc.). That no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Moloch (see the comment on 2Ki 16:3).
2Ki 23:11
And he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun. The custom of dedicating horses to the sun was practiced by many ancient nations; but it is only in Persia that we find horses and chariots so dedicated (Xen; ‘Cyrop.,’ 2Ki 8:3. 12). The idea of the sun-god as a charioteer, who drove his horses daily across the sky, is one common to several of the Aryan nations, as the Greeks, the Romans, the Hindoos, and others;but we do not find it either in Egypt or among the Semitic peoples. The sacrifice of the horse to the sun was more general, but does not seem to have been adopted by the Hebrews. It is not at all clear whence the “kings of Judah”i.e. Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amonderived the idea of maintaining sacred chariots and horses to be used in their sun-worship. They certainly could not have received it, as Keil thinks, “through the Assyrians.” At the entering in of the house of the Lordthe horses, i.e; were kept near one of the entrances to the temple, to be ready for use in sacred processionsby the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the suburbs. There were many “chambers” attached to the temple, which were sometimes used as store-rooms for different materials (1Ch 9:26; 2Ch 31:11, 2Ch 31:12; Neh 10:38; Neh 13:5), sometimes as residences (Neh 13:7). In Josiah’s time, “Nathan-melech the chamberlain,” or rather “the eunuch,” occupied one of these. It was situated “in the outskirts” or “purlieus” of the temple. And burned the chariots of the sun with fire (comp. verses 4, 6, 15, etc.). Josiah burnt all the material objects that had been desecrated by the idolatries; the persons and animals so desecrated he “removed,” or deprived of their functions.
2Ki 23:12
And the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz. It would seem that “the upper chamber of Ahaz” was within the temple precincts, since the pollutions spoken of, both before and after, are pollutions belonging to the temple. It may have been erected on the flat roof of one of the gates, or on the top of a store-chamber. Altars upon roofs were a new form of idolatry, apparently connected with the worship of the “host of heaven” (see Jer 19:13; Zep 1:5). Which the kings of Judahi.e. Manasseh and Amen, perhaps also Ahazhad made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord (see above, 2Ki 21:4, 2Ki 21:5). As Manasseh, on his repentance, merely “cast these altars out of the city” (2Ch 33:15), it was easy for Amen to replace them. They belonged to the worship of the “host of heaven.” Did the king beat down, and brake them down from thence, and east the dust of them into the brook Kidron (comp. verse 6, and the comment ad loc.).
2Ki 23:13
And the high places that were before Jerusalem. The high places which Solomon established in the neighborhood of Jerusalem for the use of his wives, and in the worship at which he became himself entangled in his old age, appear to have been situated on the ridge of the mountain which lies over against Jerusalem to the east, a part of which is Olivet. The southern summit, the traditional roans offensionis, was probably the high place of Moloch (Milcom), while the most northern summit (now called Karem-es-Seyad) has some claim to be regarded as the high place of Chemosh. The site of the high place of Ashtoreth is doubtful. Which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption. The name “mount of corruption” seems to have been given after Solomon’s time to the entire ridge of hills which lies over against Jerusalem to the east, on account of the rites which he had allowed to be established on it. The “right hand” of the mountain would, according to Jewish notions, be the more southern part. Which Solomon the King of Israelrather, King of Israel, since there is no articlehad builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians (see 1Ki 11:7). Though Ashtoreth, or Astarte, or Ishtar, or the Dea Syra, was worshipped generally throughout Phoenicia, and perhaps even more widely, yet she was in a peculiar way “the abomination of the Zidonians,” being the deity to whom the city of Sidon was especially dedicated. And for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites. Chemosh appears as the special god of the Moabites on the famous Moabite Stone in eleven places. The stone itself was dedicated to Chemosh (line 3). The Moabites are spoken of as “the people of Chemosh” (lines 5, 6). Success in war comes from him, and defeat is the result of his anger. One of his designations is “Ashtar-Chemosh” (line 17), or “Chemosh, who is also Ashtar,” Ashtar being the male principle corresponding to the female Astarte or Ashtoreth. And for Milcom. Moloch was called by the Jews “Milcom,” or “Malcam””their king” i.e. the king of the Ammonite people, since he was the sole god whom they acknowledged (see 1Ki 11:5; Jer 49:3 compared with Jer 48:7; Amo 1:15; Zep 1:5). The abomination of the children of Ammon. Did the king defile. The manner of the defilement is stated in the next verse.
2Ki 23:14
And he brake in pieces the imagesor, pillars (see the comment on 1Ki 14:23)and out down the grovesi.e. the asherim, or “sacred trees”and filled their places with the bones of men. Whatever spoke of death and dissolution was a special defilement to shrines where the gods worshipped were deities of productivity and generation. Bones of men had also the actual taint of corruption about them. The “uncleanness” of dead bodies arose first out of man’s natural shrinking from death, and was then further confirmed by the horrors accompanying decay. The notion was probably coeval with death itself. It received a sanction from the Law, which made it a legal defilement to touch a corpse (Num 19:11, Num 19:16), and placed under a sentence of uncleanness all that was in the tent where a man died (Num 19:14, Num 19:15).
2Ki 23:15
Moreover the altar that was at Bethel, and the high place; rather, the altar that was at Bethel, the high place, without any “and.” is in apposition with . By setting up an altar at Bethel, Jeroboam constituted Bethel a “high place.” Which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, both that altar end the high place he brake down. “The high place” is here equivalent to the “house of high places” in 1Ki 12:31, and designates “the buildings of this sanctuary” (Keil). At such a national center as Bethel a temple would, of course, accompany the altar. Whether the temple and altar were in use or not at the time when Josiah destroyed them, is uncertain. The mixed race which had superseded the Israelites in the country (2Ki 17:24-41) may have continued the worship, or may have set it aside. And burned the high place, and stamped it small to powder. It is not clear that this latter clause applies to the high place. Perhaps we should translateAnd stamped small to powder, and burned, the grove. It is for the most part only comparatively small objects that are “stamped small to powder”.
2Ki 23:16
And as Josiah turned himself, he spied the sepulchers that were there in the mount. The Israelite sepulchers, excavated in the reeky sides of hills, are everywhere conspicuous. Those of Bethel may have been in the low hill on which the town stands, or in the sides of the Wady Suweinit, a little further to the south. His accidentally “spying the sepulchers” gave Josiah the thought of completing his desecration of Bethel by having bones brought from them and burnt upon the altarwhereby he exactly accomplished the old prophecy (1Ki 13:2), which was not at all in his mind. And sent, end took the bones out of the sepulchers, and burned them upon the altar, and polluted it (see the comment on 2Ki 23:14), according to the word of the Lord which the men of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these words; rather, who prophesied these things. The reference is to 1Ki 13:2, and the meaning is, not that Josiah acted as he did in order to fulfill the prophecy, but that in thus acting he unconsciously fulfilled it.
2Ki 23:17
Then he said, What title is that that I see? rather, What pillar is that that I see? Josiah’s eye caught sight of a “pillar” or obelisk () among the tombs, or in their neighborhood, and he had the curiosity to ask what it was. And the men of the city told him, It is the sepulcher of the man of God, which earns from Judah (see 1Ki 13:1). The “pillar” could not have been the actual “sepulcher,” but was no doubt a monument connected with it. Many of the Phoenician excavated tombs are accompanied by monuments above ground, which are very conspicuous (see Renan’s ‘Mission de Phenicie,’ pls. 11; et seq.). And proclaimed these things that thou hast done against the altar of Bethel (see 1Ki 13:2). According to the present text of Kings, Josiah was prophesied of by name, as the king who would defile the altar; but it is possible that the words, “Josiah by name” ( ), have crept in from the margin.
2Ki 23:18
And he said, Let him alone; let no man move his bones. Josiah remembered the circumstances when they were recalled to him, and, in order to show honor to the “man of God” (1Ki 13:1-34; passim), commanded that his tomb should be undisturbed. So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet that came out of Samaria; i.e. with the bones of the Israelite prophet, who had taken care to be buried with him. The reference is to 1Ki 13:31.
2Ki 23:19
And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria. The writer of Chronicles enters into more detail. Josiah, he says, carried out his destruction of the high places, the groves, and the images “in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even unto Naphtali” (2Ch 34:6)i.e. to the northern limit of the Holy Land, which was occupied by Naphtali and Asher. By what right Josiah exercised sovereign authority in the old kingdom of Samaria, which the Assyrians had conquered and attached to their empire, can only be conjectured. Some have supposed that the Assyrians had enlarged his sovereignty, and placed Samaria under his rule; others regard him as having transferred his allegiance to Nabopolassar, and having been made by him viceroy over Palestine. But it is, perhaps, most probable that he merely took advantage of the political commotions of the time to extend his dominion so far as it seemed safe to do so. Asshur-bani-pal, the last energetic King of Assyria, appears to have ceased to reign in Josiah’s fourteenth year, when he was succeeded by a weak monarch, Asshur-ebil-ili. Great troubles now broke out. The Scythians ravaged Western Asia far and wide. Assyria was attacked by the Medea and Babylonians in combination. Under these circumstances, Josiah found himself practically independent, and began to entertain ambitious projects. He “extended his dominion from Jerusalem over Samaria” (Ewald). Assyria was too much occupied to take any notice. Baby-Ionia was in the thick of the struggle. Josiah found himself able to reunite under his own headship all the scattered portions of the old Israelite kingdom, except, perhaps, the trans-Jordanic district. He levied taxes in Samaria as freely as in Judaea (2Ch 33:9). He reformed on the same model the religions of both countries. When finally he had to fight for his throne, he marched his army into the northern portion of Samaria, and there fought the battle which cost him his life. Which the kings of Israel had made to provoke the Lord to anger. The earlier kings of Israel had simply allowed the “high places” to continue, without actively increasing or multiplying them; but Manasseh had re-established them after their destruction by Hezekiah (2Ki 21:3), and Amen had probably done the same after Manasseh’s tardy reformation. Jonah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he done in Bethel (see above, verse 15).
2Ki 23:20
And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars. It is not directly said that he had done this at Bethel, though it had been prophesied that he would do so (1Ki 13:2). Possibly there were no priests at Bethel at the time, since the “calf” set up by Jeroboam had been carried off (Hos 10:6) by the Assyrians. The difference between the treatment of the high-place priests in Israel and in Judah (2Ki 23:9) clearly implies that the former were attached to the worship of false gods, while the latter were priests of Jehovah who worshipped him with superstitious and unauthorized rites and ceremonies. And burned men’s bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem.
2Ki 23:21
And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the Passover. The account given of Josiah’s Passover is much more full in Chronicles than in Kings. In Chronicles it occupies nineteen verses of 2Ch 35:1-27. We learn from Chronicles that all the rites prescribed by the Law, whether in Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy, were duly observed, and that the festival was attended, not only by the Judaeans, but by many Israelites from among the ten tribes, who still remained intermixed with the Assyrian colonists in the Samaritan country (see 2Ch 35:17, 2Ch 35:18). Unto the Lord your God, as it is written in the book of this covenant. The ordinances for the due observance of the Passover feast are contained chiefly in Exodus (Exo 12:3-20; Exo 13:5-10). They are repeated, but with much less fullness, in Deu 16:1-8. The “book of the covenant” found by Hilkiah must, therefore, certainly have contained Exodus (see below, verse 25).
2Ki 23:22
Surely there was not holden such a Passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah. Such a Passover, one so numerously attended (2Ch 35:18). and so exactly kept according to every ordinance of the Law of Moses (2Ch 35:6), had not been celebrated during all the period of the judges, from Joshua to Samuel, nor under the kings of all Israel, Saul, David, and Solomon, nor under those of the separated kingdom of Judah, from Rehoboam to this year (the eighteenth) of Josiah. It is an extraordinary perversity which concludes (as do De Wette and Thenius), from this comparison of the present with former Passovers under the judges and the kings, that there had been no such former Passovers at all! Two, at any rate, are recorded (Jos 5:10, Jos 5:11; 2Ch 30:13-26). Ewald has the good sense to express his dissent from this view, and to declare the meaning of the writer to be simply that “since the time of the judges there had never been such a celebration of the Passover, in such strict accordance, that is, with the prescriptions of a sacred book as that which now took place”.
2Ki 23:23
But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, wherein this Passover was holden to the Lord in Jerusalem (compare, on the date, 2Ki 22:3 and 2Ch 35:19). The eighteenth year of Josiah corresponded probably, in part to B.C. 622, in part to B.C. 621.
2Ki 23:24
Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards. Persons of these classes had been encouraged by Manasseh, in his earlier reign (2Ki 21:6), and probably by Amon (2Ki 21:21). As Josiah designed a thorough reformation, it was necessary for him to put them down. And the images; literally, the teraphim, which are thought to have been small images kept as household gods in many Israelite families from a very ancient date (see Gen 31:19-35). The superstition was exceedingly persistent. We find it under the judges (Jdg 18:14), under Saul (1Sa 19:13), here under the later kings, and it is still mentioned after the return from the Captivity (Zec 10:2). The superstition was, apparently, Babylonian (Eze 21:21), and brought from Ur of the Chaldees by the family of Abraham. Besides being regarded as household gods, the teraphim were used in divination. And the idols, and all the abominations that were spied. The “idols,” gillulim, are probably, like the teraphim, of a private nature, figures used as amulets or talismans. Excepting in Ezekiel, the word is an uncommon one. By the “abominations that were spied” are meant secret defilements and superstitious practices in households, which needed to be searched out. (So Thenius and Bahr.) In the land of Judah and in Jerusalem. Not, apparently, in the cities of Samaria, where such a rigid inquisition would perhaps have provoked a stubborn resistance. Did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the Law; rather, that he might establish the words of the Law. Laws against such practices as Josiah now put down will be found in Exo 22:18; Le 19:31; 20:27; Deu 18:10-12. Which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord (see 2Ki 22:8).
2Ki 23:25
And like unto him was there no king before him (see the comment on 2Ki 18:5). The writer of Kings cannot be said to place Josiah above Hezekiah, or Hezekiah above Josiah. He accords them the same degree of praise, but, in Hezekiah’s case, dwells upon his trust in God; in Josiah’s, upon his exact obedience to the Law. On the whole, his judgment accords very closely with that of the son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus 49:4). “All, except David and Ezekias and Josias, were defective: for they forsook the Law of the Most High.” That turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might. This triple enumeration is intended to include the whole moral and mental nature of man, all the energies of his understanding, his will, and his physical vitality (see the comment on Deu 6:5a passage which is in the writer’s mind). According to all the Law of Moses. This is an indication that, in the writer’s view, the whole Law was contained in the book found by Hilkiah. Neither after him arose there any like him. This is but moderate praise, since the four kings who reigned after himJehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiahwere, one and all, wicked princes.
2Ki 23:26
Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath. It was too late, not for God to forgive upon repentance, but for the nation to repent sincerely and heartily. Sin had become engrained in the national character. Vain were the warnings of Jeremiah, vain were his exhortations to repentance (Jer 3:12-14, Jer 3:22; Jer 4:1-8; Jer 7:3-7, etc.), vain his promises that, if they would turn to God, they would be forgiven and spared. Thirty years of irreligion and idolatry under Manasseh had sapped the national vigor, and made true repentance an impossibility. How weak and half-hearted must have been the return to God towards the close of Manasseh’s reign, that it should have had no strength to resist Amon, a youth of twenty-two, but should have disappeared wholly on his accession! And how far from sincere must have been the present conformity to the wishes of Josiah, the professed renewal of the covenant (verse 3), and revival of disused ceremonies (verses 21-23)! Jeremiah searched in vain through the streets of Jerusalem to find a man that executed judgment, or sought the truth (Jer 5:1). The people had “a revolting and rebellious heart; they were revolted and gone” (Jer 5:23). Not only idolatry, but profligacy (Jer 5:1) and injustice and oppression everywhere prevailed (Jer 5:25-28). “From the least to the greatest of them, every one was given to covetousness” (Jer 6:13); even the prophets and the priests “dealt falsely” (Jer 6:13), The state of things was one which necessarily brought down the Divine judgment, and all that Josiah’s efforts could do was a little to delay it. Wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal. Manasseh’s provocations lived in their consequences. God’s judgment upon Israel was not mere vengeance for the sins that Manasseh had committed, or even for the multitudinous iniquities into which he had led the nation (2Ki 21:9). It was punishment rendered necessary by the actual condition of the nationthe condition whereto it had been reduced by Manasseh’s evil doings.
2Ki 23:27
And the Lord saidGod said in his secret counsels, came to the determination, and pronounced the sentence in his thoughtsI will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel. The sins of Judah were now as great as those of Israel had been; therefore her punishment must be the same, as God is no respecter of persons. And I will east off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen. God “chose” Jerusalem when he put it into the heart of David to bring up the ark thither (2Sa 6:1-17). And the house of which I said, My Name shall he there (see Deu 12:11; 1Ki 8:29, etc.). A visible confirmation was given to all that David and Solomon had done in establishing the temple at Jerusalem as the head-quarters of the national religion, when “fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices” made there, and “the glory of the Lord filled the house”.
2Ki 23:28-30
The events of Josiah’s reign from his eighteenth to his thirty-first year are left a blank, both here and in Chronicles. Politically, the time was a stirring one. The great invasion of Western Asia by the Scythic hordes (Herod; 1.103-106), which is alluded to by Jer 6:1-5, Eze 38:1-23 :39; and perhaps by Zep 2:6, probably belongs to it; as also the attack of Psamatik I. upon Philistia (Herod; 2.105), the fall of the Assyrian empire, and the destruction of Nineveh: the establishment of the independence of Babylon, and her rise to greatness; together with the transfer of power in the central part of Western Asia, from the Assyrians to the Medea. Amid the dangers which beset him, Josiah appears to have conducted himself prudently, gradually extending his power over Samaria and Galilee, without coming into hostile collision with any of the neighboring nations, until about the year B.C. 609 or 608, when his land was invaded by Pharaoh-Nechoh, the Neku of the Egyptian monuments. Josiah felt himself called upon to resist this invasion, and, in doing so, met his death (verses 29, 30).
2Ki 23:28
Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did. Josiah was reckoned a good rather than a great king. No mention is made of his “might.” The writer of Chronicles (2Ch 35:26) commemorates his “kindnesses” or “his good deeds.” The son of Sirach speaks of his “upright” behavior (Ecclesiasticus 49:2). Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.4. 1) praises his “justice” and his “piety,” and says (ibid; 10.4. 5) his later years were passed “in peace and opulence.” Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (see 2Ch 35:27).
2Ki 23:29
In his days Pharaoh-Nechoh King of Egypt went up against the King of Assyria. Neku, the “Pharaoh-Nechoh” of this passage, and the Necos of Herodotus, was the son of Psamatik I; and succeeded his father on the throne of Egypt, probably in B.C. 610. He was one of the most enterprising of the later Egyptian kings, and appears to have made this expedition in his second or third year. The unsettled condition of Western Asia after the Scythic invasion, and the fall of the Assyrian empire, seemed to give an opportunity for Egypt to reclaim her old dominion over Syria and Mesopotamia. The “King of Assyria,” against whom Pharaoh-Nechoh “went up,” was probably Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar. His proper rifle was “King of Babylon,” which is what Nebuchadnezzar always calls him; but the Jews not unnaturally regarded him as the inheritor of the Assyrian empire, as indeed they regarded the Persian monarchs also (Ezr 6:22), and therefore gave him the title of “King of Assyria.” To the river Euphrates. The author of Chronicles says that “Necho King of Egypt came up to fight against Carchemish” (or “at Carehemish”) “by Euphrates,” which shows that his design was to penetrate into Northern Syria, where Carchemish (now Jerabus) was situated, with a view probably of crossing the Euphrates by the ford at Bir, or by that at Balis, into Mesopotamia. And King Josiah wont against him. It is possible that Josiah had accepted the position of Babylonian tributary after the fall of the Assyrian kingdom, and thought himself bound to resist an attack upon his suzerain. Or he may simply have resented the violation of his territory, without his permission, by a foreign army. Certainly, if he had allowed the free passage of the Egyptian troops, backwards and forwards, through his country, he would in a short time have lost even the shadow of independence. Nechoh’s assurance that his expedition was not against him (Josiah), but against the Assyrians (2Ch 35:21), was not a thing to be relied upon, any more than his declaration that God had commanded his expedition. And he slew him at Megiddo, when he had soon him. Megiddo is, beyond all doubt, the present El-Ledjun on the northern outskirt of the range of hills which separates the Plain of Esdraelon from that of Sharon. It is certainly surprising to find that Josiah had taken up a position so far to the north, leaving Jerusalem, and, indeed, all Judaea, unprotected. But he may have thought the advantages of the position such as to compensate for any risk to the Judaean cities, in which he would, of course, have left garrisons. Or, possibly, as Keil and Bahr suppose, Nechoh may have conveyed his troops to the Syrian coast by sea, and have landed in the Bay of Acre, close to the Plain of Esdraelon. In this case Josiah would have no choice, but, if he opposed the Egyptian monarch at all, must have met him where he did, in the Esdraelon plain, as he entered it from the Plain of Acre.
2Ki 23:30
And his servants carried him in a chariothis “second chariot,” according to the writer of Chronicles (2Ch 35:24), which was probably one kept in reserve in case flight should be necessary, of lighter construction, and drawn by fleeter horses, than his war-chariotdead from Megiddo. Wounded to death, that is. From Chronicles we gather that his wound, which was from an arrow, was not immediately fatal (2Ch 35:23, 2Ch 35:24); but that he died of it on his way to Jerusalem, or directly after his arrival. And brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own sepulcher. The writer of Chronicles says, “in the sepulcher of his fathers,” apparently meaning the burial-place in which were interred the bodies of Manasseh and Amen. We learn from Chronicles that a great lamentation was made for Josiah, the only King of Judah slain in battle, the last good king of David’s line, the pious prince whose piety had not sufficed to avert the anger of Jehovah. Jeremiah “lamented for him” (2Ch 35:25), perhaps in a set composition (Josephus, ‘ Ant. Jud.,’ 10.5. 1); though that composition is certainly not either the Book of Lamentations or the fourth chapter of that book. He was further mourned by “all the singing men and the singing women” (2 Chronicles, l.s.c.), who “spake of him in their lamentations, and “made them an ordinance in Israel,” and entered these “lamentations,” apparently in a book, which was called ‘The Book of Lamentations,’ or ‘of Dirges.’ And the people of the laud took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah. Jehoahaz was otherwise named “Shallum” (1Ch 3:15; Jer 22:11). On what grounds the people preferred him to his elder brother, Eliakim, we do not know. Perhaps Eliakim had accompanied his father to Megiddo, and been made prisoner by Nechoh in the battle. And anointed him (see the comment on 1Ki 1:34, and supra, 2Ki 11:12), and made him king in his father’s stead.
2Ki 23:31-33
SHORT REIGN OF JEHOAHAZ. Pharaoh-Nechoh, having defeated Josiah, left Jerusalem and Judaea behind him, while he pressed forward on his original enterprise (see 2Ki 23:29) into Northern Syria and the district about Carehemish, or the tract north-east of Aleppo. It was three months before he had completed his conquests in these quarters, and, having arranged matters to his satisfaction, set out on his return to Egypt. During these three months Jehoahaz bore rule at Jerusalem (2Ki 23:31), and “did evil in the sight of the Lord” (2Ki 23:32). Ezekiel compares him to “a young lion,” which “learned to catch the prey, and devoured men” (Eze 19:3). It may be suspected that he re-established the idolatries which Josiah had put down; but this is uncertain. Pharaoh-Nechoh, on his return from Carehemish, learning what the Jews had done, sent envoys to Jerusalem, and summoned Jehoahaz to his presence at Riblah, in the territory of Hamath (verse 33; comp. Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.5. 2). Je-hoahaz obeyed the summons; and Nechoh, having obtained possession of his person, “put him in bands,” and carried him off to Egypt, where he died (verse 34; comp. Jer 22:10-12; Josephus, l.s.c.)
2Ki 23:31
Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old when he began to reign. He was, therefore, younger than his brother Eliakim, who, three months later, was “twenty-five years old” (2Ki 23:36). His original name seems to have been “Shallum,” as above noticed (see the comment on 2Ki 23:30). Probably he changed it to “Jehoahaz” (“Possession of Jehovah”) on his accession. And he reigned three months in Jerusalemthree months and tern days, according to Josephusand his mother’s name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. The father of Hamutal was not, therefore, Jeremiah the prophet, who was a native of Anathoth (see Jer 1:1).
2Ki 23:32
And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord (see the comment on 2Ki 23:31-33). Josephus says that he was (l. s. c.)”irreligious and of impure habits.” Ezekiel (Eze 19:3) seems to call him a persecutor. According to all that his fathers had done. As idolatry was the chief sin of his “fathers,” Jehoahaz must have been an idolater.
2Ki 23:33
And Pharaoh-Nechoh put him in bands at Riblah. “Riblah,” which retains its name, was situated in the Coele-Syrian plain, on the right bank of the Orontes, in lat. 34 23′ N. nearly. It commanded a ford over the river, and is in the midst of a rich, corn-producing country. Hamath, to which it was regarded as belonging, is situated more than fifty miles further down the river. Riblah was well placed as a center for communication with the neighboring countries. As Dr. Robinson says, “From this point the roads were open by Aleppo and the Euphrates to Nineveh, or by Palmyra (Tadmor) to Babylon, by the end of Lebanon and the coast to Palestine (Philistia) and Egypt, or through the, Buka’a and the Jordan valley to the center of the Holy Land.” Nebuchadnezzar followed the example of Nechoh in making Ribiah his headquarters during his sieges of Tyro and Jerusalem (see 2Ki 25:21; Jer 39:5; Jer 52:9, Jer 52:10, Jer 52:26, Jer 52:27). In the land of Hamath. The “land of Hamath” was the upper part of the Coele-Syrian valley from about lat. 34 to lat. 35 30′ N. That he might not reign in Jerusalem. Nechoh might naturally distrust the people’s choice. He might also regard the setting up of any king at Jerusalem without his sanction as an act of contumacy on the part of a nation which had been practically conquered by the complete defeat of Josiah at Megiddo. Whether his conduct in seizing Jehoahaz after inviting him to a conference was justifiable or not may be questioned; but, in point of fact, he did but use the right of the conqueror somewhat harshly. And put the land to a tribute of an hundred talents of silver, and a talent of gold. (So Josephus, l.s.c.) The tribute was a very moderate one. A century earlier Sennacherib had enacted a tribute of three hundred talents of silver, and thirty of gold (see above, 2Ki 18:14). We may conjecture that Nechoh wished to conciliate the Jews, regarding them as capable of rendering him good service in the struggle, on which he had entered, with Babylon.
2Ki 23:34-37
ACCESSION AND EARLY YEARS OF JEHOIAKIM. Pharaoh-Nechoh, when he deposed Jehoahaz, at once supplied his place by another king. He had no intention of altering the governmental system of Palestine, or of ruling his conquests in any other way than through dependent monarchs. His choice fell on Josiah’s eldest surviving son (1Ch 3:15), Eliakim, who was the natural successor of his father. Eliakim, on ascending the throne, changed his name, as Jehoahaz appears to have done (see the comment on 2Ki 23:31), and reigned as Jehoiakim. For three years he continued a submissive vassal of the Egyptian monarch, and remitted him his tribute regularly (2Ki 23:36). But his rule was in all respects an evil one. He “did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2Ki 23:37). He leant towards idolatry (2Ch 36:8); he was oppressive and irreligious (Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.’ 10.5. 2); he “shed innocent blood” (Jer 22:17); he was luxurious (Jer 22:14, Jer 22:15), covetous (Jer 22:17), and tyrannical (Eze 19:6).
2Ki 23:34
And Pharaoh-Nechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father. (On the general inclination of Oriental monarchs to support the hereditary principle, and to establish sons in their fathers’ governments, even when the father’s had been rebels or enemies, see Herod; 2Ki 3:15.) And turned his name to Jehoiakim. We may understand that Nechoh required him to take a new name, as a mark of subjection (comp. Gen 41:45; Ezr 5:14; Dan 1:7; and also 2Ki 24:17), but left the choice of the name to himself. He made the change as slight as possible, merely substituting “Jehovah” for “El” as the initial element. The sense of the name remained the same, “God will set up.” The idea that Nechoh was pleased with the new name on account of its apparent connection with the Egyptian moon-god, Aah (Menzel), is very fanciful. And took Jehoahaz awayi.e. carried him captive to Egypt (see Jer 22:10, Jer 22:11; Eze 19:4), a very common practice of Egyptian conquerors, and one often accompanied by extreme severitiesand he cams to Egypt, and died there (see Jer 22:12, where this is prophesied).
2Ki 23:35
And Jehoiakim gave the silver and the gold to Pharaoh. Jehoiakim, i.e; paid the tribute, which Nechoh had fixed (2Ki 23:33), regularly. He did not, however, pay it out of the state treasury, which was exhausted. But he taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every one according to his taxation, to give it unto Pharaoh-Nechoh; rather, he had the land valued (comp. Le 27:8), and “exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every one according to his valuation.”
2Ki 23:36
Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reignhe was therefore two years older than his brother Jehoahaz (see the comment on 2Ki 23:31)and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalemprobably from B.C. 608 to B.C. 597and his mother’s name was Zebudahhe was, therefore, only half-brother to Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, whose mother was “Hamutal” (see 2Ki 23:31 and 2Ki 24:18)the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah. “Rumah” is probably the same city as the “Arumah” of Jdg 9:41, which was in the vicinity of Shechem.
2Ki 23:37
And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done. Jeremiah says of Jehoiakim, “Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor’s service without wages, and giveth him not for his work; that saith, I will build me a large house and wide chambers, and cutteth him out windows; and it is coiled with cedar, and painted with vermilion. Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar? did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, and then it was well with him? He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the Lord. But thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence, to do it” (Jer 22:13-17). Josephus calls him “an unjust man and an evil-doer, neither pious in his relations towards God nor equitable in his dealings with his fellow men” (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.5. 2). His execution of Urijah, the son of Shemalah, for prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 26:20-23), was an act at once of cruelty and impiety. It is suspected that, besides reintroducing into Judah all the foreign rites extirpated by his father, he added Egyptian rites to their number. The tyranny which he practiced was likewise of an Egyptian cast, including, as it did, the exaction of forced labor from his subjects (Jer 22:13), an old custom of the Pharaohs, and it is quite possible that his “passion for building splendid and costly houses” (Ewald) was awakened by his knowledge of the magnificence which characterized the monarchs of the Saitic dynasty, who revived in Egypt the architectural glories of the Ramessides.
HOMILETICS
2Ki 23:1-3
Standing to the covenant.
With a heart stirred up to intense zeal for God by the words which he had heard read out of the newly found bookthe precious “book of the Law,” thrust into temporary oblivion by his wicked grandfather and fatherJosiah felt that a greet act of national repentance and national profession of faith was called for; and summoning “the men of Judah” by their representatives, and all the whole mass of the people of Jerusalem, he proceeded to call upon them to “stand to the covenant.” The idea was well conceived and well carried out. After a national apostasyan open, evident, and flagrant turning away from God, and adoption of idolatrous worships most abominable in his sightit was only fitting, only decent, that there should be a sort of public reparation of the wrong donea turning to God as open, evident, and manifest as the turning away had been. Accordingly, this was what Josiah determined-on; and the public act of reparation resolved itself into three parts.
I. A PUBLIC RECITATION OF THE COVENANT. As the Law had been put out of sight, neglected, forgotten, during the space of two reigns, or the greater part of them, so now it was solemnly and publicly recited, proclaimed, declared to be the basis of the national life, the law of the community. The utmost possible honor was done to it by the king reading it himself in the ears of the peoplereading it from first to last, “all the words of it,” while the priests and the prophets and “all the people” stood attent, listening to the words so long unheard, so long forgotten, so long treated with contempt.
II. A DECLARATION OF ASSENT AND CONSENT TO THE WORDS OF THE COVENANT BY THE KING. The king was the federal head of the nation, and, in pledging himself to the keeping of the covenant, performed not a mere personal, but a representative and federal act. He pledged the nation as a whole to the acceptance and performance of the covenant, undertaking for them that they should “walk after the Lord, and keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul.”
III. A DECLARATION OF ASSENT AND CONSENT TO THE WORDS OF THE COVENANT BY THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES INDIVIDUALLY. Nations cannot be saved in the lump. It is necessary that each individual come into personal relations with his Maker and Redeemer and Savior. So “all the people,” each of them severally, with one accord and one acclaim, “stood to the covenant”pledged themselves to keep all the words of it henceforth with all their heart and with all their soul. A great wave of religious feeling seems to have passed over the people, and with a sincerity that was for the moment quite real and unfeigned, they declared their willing acceptance of the whole covenant, of its terrible threats as well as of its gracious promises, of its stern commands no less than of its comforting assurances. They bound themselves individually to observe all the words that were written in the book; so renewing their federal relation with God, and again becomingwhat they had well-nigh ceased to behis people. But something more was wanting. It is in no case enough to make a resolution unless we keep to it. Performance must follow upon promise. The people were bound, not merely to “stand to the covenant,” in the way of profession, just once in their lives, but to stand to it, in the way of action, thenceforward perpetually. It was here that they failed; and it is here that men most commonly fail. To resolve is easy; to stick to our resolutions, difficult. The writings of Jeremiah prove to us that, within a very few years of their acceptance of the covenant in the eighteenth year of Josiah, the people of Judah cast it behind them, became a backsliding people, returned to their idolatries and abominations, forsook God, and sware by them that were no gods, committed adultery, assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houseswere “as fed horses in the morning, every one neighing after his neighbor’s wife” (Jer 5:7, Jer 5:8). A righteous God could not but “visit for these things”could not but “be avenged upon such a nation as this” (Jer 5:29).
2Ki 23:4-27
The inability of the best intentions and the strongest will to convert a nation that is corrupt to the core.
Josiah’s reformation was the most energetic and the most thorough-going that was ever carried out by any Jewish king. It far transcended, not only the efforts made by Jehoiada in the time of Joash (2Ki 11:17-21; 2Ki 12:1-16), and the feeble attempts of Manasseh on his return from Babylon (2Ch 33:15-19), but even the earnest endeavors of Hezekiah at the beginning of his reign (2Ki 17:3-6). “It extended not only to the kingdom of Judah, but also to the former kingdom of Israel; not only to the public, but also to the private, life of the people. The evil was everywhere to be torn out, roots and all. Nothing which could perpetuate the memory of heathen or of illegitimate Jehovah-worship remained standing. All the places of worship, all the images, all the utensils, were not only destroyed, but also defiled; even the ashes were thrown into the river (?) at an unclean place, that they might be borne away forever. The idol-priests themselves were slain, and the bones of those who were already dead were taken out of the graves and burnt. The priests of Jehovah, who had performed their functions upon the heights, were deposed from their office and dignity, and were not allowed to sacrifice any more at the altar of Jehovah” (Bahr). It may be added to this account that private superstitions, the use of teraphim and gillulim, together with the practice of witchcraft and magic arts, were put a stop to, and the rightful ordinances of the Mosaic religion restored and re-established with the utmost strictness and exactitude (verses 24, 25). Josiah did all that a godly king could do to check the downward course of his nation and recall it to piety and virtue. And for his efforts the sacred writers give him the highest praise (2Ki 22:2; 2Ki 23:25; 2Ch 34:2; 2Ch 35:26; Ecclesiasticus 49:1-3). It has been reserved for modern criticism to discover that he defeated his own ends by the violence of his methods, and injured the cause of true religion by making a book”especially such an imperfect law-book and history as the Pentateuch”the fundamental law of the nation (Ewald, Eisenlohr). It has not, however, been as yet shown that Josiah’s methods were any more violent than the Law required (Exo 22:20; Deu 13:5, Deu 13:9, Deu 13:15), much less that injury is done to the cause of true religion by the adoption of a sacred book as the standard of religious truth and morality. The real reason for the failure of his reformation was “the irreformability of the people.” When they professed to turn to God, they did not do it “with their whole heart, but feignediy” (Jer 3:10)at any rate, with but half their heart, moved by a gust of sentiment, not by any deep strong tide of religious feeling. And so they soon relapsed into their old ways. The severe religion, the stern morality, which Josiah sought to impose, had no attraction for them. They shrank from Mosaism as cold, hard, austere. They preferred the religions of the nations, with their lax morality, their gay rites, their consecration of voluptuousness. So they “slid back by a perpetual backsliding” (Jer 8:5); they reintroduced all the old abominations; they sinned in secret when they were unable to sin in public; they “proceeded from evil to evil” (Jer 9:4). It has been argued that if Josiah’s life had not been cut short within thirteen years of his undertaking the great national reform, if he had been permitted to carry on for some years longer in the same spirit the work which he had initiated, there might have been a complete removal of all the ancient and deep-rooted evils, and a lasting impression might have been made upon the character of the whole people. But this seems too favorable a forecast. The nation was rotten to the core; the “whole head was sick, and the whole heart faint . from the sole of the foot even unto the head there was no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores.” When such is the case, no human efforts can avail anythingnot the strongest will, not the wisest measures, not the purest and best intentions; the time for repentance and return to God is gone by, and nothing remains but “a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall destroy God’s adversaries” (Heb 10:27).
HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN
2Ki 23:31
2Ki 24:7
Two royal brothers: the reigns of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim.
I. THEY WERE BROTHERS IN WICKEDNESS. Of each of them it is said, “He did evil in the sight of the Lord.” What the particular sins of Jehoahaz were we are not told. But the sins of Jehoiakim are fully and fearlessly stated and denounced by Jeremiah. “Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor’s service without wages, and giveth him not for his work; that saith, I will build me a wide house and large chambers, and cutteth him out windows; and it is celled with cedar, and painted with vermilion. Thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence, to do it (Jer 22:13-17). Injustice, fraudulence, selfishness, covetousness, oppression, violence, murder,such were the main characteristics of him who should have been an example of the people. Selfishness and covetousness were at the bottom of all the rest. And are they not common sins? In the rich they lead to injustice and oppression; in the poor they lead to discontent ant envy and violence. The spirit of the gospel, by promoting unselfishness, would lead to fair and upright dealing between man and man.
II. THEY WERE BOTH WICKED, THOUGH THE SONS OF A GOOD FATHER. Even a good man may have had sons. Perhaps the home training they received was defective. Josiah may have been so much engrossed with the cares of his kingdom, and the reformation of his people, that he neglected the state of his own household. But nevertheless, they had a good example, which they neglected to follow. Jeremiah reminds Jehoiakim of this. “Did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment, and justice, and then it was well with him? He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the Lord” (Jer 22:15, Jer 22:16). The privileges and the example they had received increased their guilt. “To whom much is given, of him shall much be required.” If we have great privileges, we have also great responsibilities. Those who have been brought up in a Christian land or in a godly home will be expected to know better than those who have been brought up in a heathen country or amid careless and godless surroundings.
III. THEY WERE BOTH WICKED, THOUGH THE ONE HAD THE OTHER‘S FATE AS A. WARNING. Jehoahaz was sent into exile for his sins. Yet Jehoiakim, who succeeded him, did not profit by the warning. None of us are without many warnings against sin. We have the plain warnings of God’s Word. We have the terrible warnings of his providence. How fearful, even in this life, are the consequences of many sins! We have warnings against putting off the offer of salvation to a more convenient season. “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh.”
IV. THEY BOTH HAD A MISERABLE END. Jehoahaz died in exile. Pharaoh-Nechoh put him in prison at Rihlah, and he died in captivity. Speaking of him, Jeremiah says, “Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: but weep sore for him that goeth away: for he shall return no more, nor see his native country” (Jer 22:10). What a pathetic strain! The love of the Jews for their native land was most intense. “How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?” “Yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.” But, after all, what a profitless kind of patriotism theirs was! They loved their native land, hut they were blind to its best interests. They did not remember the secret of true prosperity and well-being. They did not remember that “righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” They forsook him who was their nation’s best Defender and unfailing Friend. A patriotism without righteousness will not benefit a nation much. Jehoiakim died at Jerusalem. But what an ignominious fate was his! Jeremiah had foretold it when he said, “They shall not lament for him, saying, Ah my brother! or, Ah sister! He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jer 22:18, Jer 22:19). It was Jehoiakim who cut with his penknife the roll on which were written the words of the Lord, and cast the leaves into the fire (Jer 36:1-32.). For this God said, regarding Jehoiakim, that he should have none to sit upon the throne of David; “and his dead body should be east out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.” Jehoiakim perished, but the Word of God, which he sought to destroy, was fulfilled. God’s Word cannot be destroyed. Roman emperors sought to destroy it. The Church of Rome, for the exaltation of the priesthood, kept it from the people. “But the Word of God is not bound.” Contrast the fate of Jehoiakim, who despised and dishonored the Word of God, with the universal lamentation that followed the death of his father Josiah, who honored God’s Word and obeyed its teachings.C.H.I.
HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS
2Ki 23:1-25
Good aims and bad methods.
“And the king sent,” etc. Did the world ever contain a people more morally corrupt than that of the Jews? When we mark them journeying in the wilderness forty years, a more murmuring, disorderly, rebellious set of men where else could we discover? When settled in Palestine, a “land flowing with milk and honey” we find them committing every crime of which humanity is capableadulteries, suicides, murders, ruthless wars, gross idolatries, their priests impostors, their kings bloody tyrants. Even David, who is praised the most, was guilty of debauchery, falsehood, and blood. They were a nation steeped in depravity. They were “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears;” they did “always resist the Holy Ghost” (see Act 7:51). No doubt there was always a true “Church of God” within the nation (1Ki 19:18); but to call the whole nation “the Jewish Church” is a misnomer, and far from a harmless one. It has encouraged Christian nations to fashion their communities after the Jewish model instead of after the Christian one. The verses I have selected record and illustrate good aims and bad methods.
I. GOOD AIMS. Josiah’s aims, as here presented, were confessedly high, noble, and good. I offer two remarks concerning his purposes as presented in these verses.
1. To reduce his people to a loyal obedience to Heaven. His aim was to sweep every vestige of religious error and moral crime from his dominion. Truly, what more laudable purpose could any man have than this, to crush all evil within his domain, to crush it not only in its form but in its essence? This was indeed the great end of Christ’s mission to the world. He came “to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
2. Generated within him by the discovery of the Divine will. Somehow or other, as was seen in the last chapter, the book of the Law which was to regulate the lives of the Jewish people had been lost in the temple, lost probably for many years, but Hilkiah the high priest had just discovered it, and Josiah becomes acquainted with its contents. What is the result? He is seized with the burning conviction that the whole nation is gone wrong, and forthwith he seeks to flash the same conviction into the souls of his people. “And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem. And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant.” Thus sprang his noble purpose. It was not a capricious whim or the outcome of a sudden and fitful impulse; it was rooted in an enlightened conviction. A noble purpose must be righteously founded.
II. BAD METHODS. Real good work requires not only a good purpose, but a good method also. Saul sought to honor the God of his fathers, and this was good; but his method, viz. that of persecuting the Christians, was bad. How did Josiah now seek to realize his purpose to sweep idolatry from the face of his country? Not by argument, suasion, and moral influence, but by brute force and violence (2Ki 23:4-28). “All the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the grove” (2Ki 23:4), that is, all the apparatus for idol-worship, these he ordered to be burnt outside Jerusalem, “in the fields of Kidron.” He “stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people. And he brake down the houses of the sodomites” (2Ki 23:6, 2Ki 23:7). He also “brake in pieces the images, and cut down the groves, and filled their places with the bones of men” (2Ki 23:14). Moreover, “he slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men’s bones upon them” (2Ki 23:20). In this way, the way of force and violence, he essayed to work out his grand purpose. I offer two remarks concerning his method.
1. It was unphilosophic. Moral evils cannot be put down by force; coercion cannot travel to a man’s soul. The fiercest wind, the most vivid lightnings, cannot reach the moral Elijah in his cave. The “still small voice” alone can touch him, and bring him out to light and truth. After all this, were the people less idolatrous? Before Josiah was cold in his grave idolatry was as rife as ever. You may destroy to-day all heathen temples and priests on the face of the earth, but in doing this you have done nothing towards quenching the spirit of idolatrythat will remain as rampant as ever; phoenix-like, it will rise with new vitality and vigor from the ashes into which material fires have consumed its temples, its books, and its feasts. Ay, and you might destroy all the monastic orders and theological tomes of the Roman Catholic Church, and leave the spirit of popery as strong, nay, stronger than ever. Truth alone can conquer error, love alone can conquer wrath, right alone can conquer wrong.
2. It was mischievous. The evil was not extinguished; it burnt with fiercer flame. Persecution has always propagated the opinions it has sought to crush. The crucified Malefactor became the moral Conqueror and Commander of the people. Violence begets violence, anger begets anger, war begets war. “He that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword.”D.T.
2Ki 23:26-37
Lamentable unskillfulness and incorrigibility.
“Notwithstanding the Lord,” etc. This short fragment of Jewish history reflects great disgrace on human nature, and may well humble us in the dust. It brings into prominence at least two subjects suggestive of solemn and practical thought.
I. THE WORTHLESSNESS OF UNWISELY DIRECTED EFFORTS TO BENEFIT MEN, HOWEVER WELL INTENDED. Josiah, it seems from the narrative, was one of the best of Israel’s kings. “Like unto him was there no king before him.” Most strenuous were his efforts to improve his country, to raise it from the worship of idols to the worship of the true God. He sacrifices his very life to his endeavors; and what was his success? Nil. “Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal. And the Lord said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, My Name shall be there. Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?” All the efforts of this noble king seemed to be abortive. But why? Because, as shown in our preceding homily, while his motive was good, his methods were bad. Instead of depending upon argument and suasion, moral influence, and the embodiment of moral goodness, he uses force. “He slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men’s bones upon them,” etc. Here is a principle in the Divine government of man. No man, however good, can accomplish a good thing unless he employs wise means. The Church of Rome is an example. Its aim, the bringing of the world into the one fold, is sublimely good, but the means it has employed not only neutralize the purpose, but drive large masses of the population away into the wilderness of infidelity and careless living. It is not enough for a Church to have good aims; it must have wise methods: not enough for preachers to desire the salvation of their people; they must use means in harmony with the laws of thought and feeling. Hence fanatical Churches and preachers have always done more harm than good. “If the iron be blunt, and he do not whet the edge, then must he put to more strength: but wisdom is profitable to direct.” Indeed, this man’s unwise efforts not only failed to benefit his country, they brought ruin on himself. He lost his life. “In his days Pharaoh-Nechoh King of Egypt went up against the King of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and King Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him. And his servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo.” No doubt Josiah was inspired with patriotic and religious purposes in going forth against Pharaoh-Nechoh, and in seeking to prevent the march of a bloody tyrant and a hostile force through his territory in order to attack the King of Assyria. But where was his wisdom? What chance had he to hurl back such a formidable invasion? None whatever. Single-handed, of course, he could do nothing. And what help could he obtain from his subjects, most of whom had fallen into that moral degradation which robs the soul of all true courage and skill?
II. THE AMAZING INCORRIGIBILITY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE. Do we find that the men of Israel were improved by the efforts of such kings as Hezekiah and Josiah? Nay. They seemed to grow worse. Scarcely was Josiah in his grave before his son Jehoahaz, who was twenty-three years old, ascended the throne, and during the three months of his reign he “did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord;” and when he is struck down another son of Josiah, Eliakim, who was afterwards named Jehoiakim, received the throne, and, after a reign of twenty-five years, the record is, “He did that which is evil in the sight of the Lord. Here, then, is moral incorrigibility. In all history, ancient or modern, I know no people whose doings were of a baser type. With all the lofty advantages which they had, and with the interpositions of Heaven vouchsafed to them, they seemed to grow worse from age to age. The little spring of depravity that broke forth from their great ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, seemed to deepen, swell in volume, and widen as time rolled on. It was at last a kind of Stygian stream. You can scarcely point to one pellucid wave rising on its surface. It was foul from top to bottom. How sadly have many professed disciples of Christ misinterpreted Jewish history! So much so that they have Judaized the very gospel, and made Judaism a model after which they have shaped communities professedly Christian.
CONCLUSION.
1. A word to those who desire to be useful. Unless you practically recognize the truly scientific adaptation of means to ends, and understand the eternal principles by which the human mind can be rightly influenced, you will “labor in vain, and spend your strength for naught.” There is no way by which coercion can travel to a man’s soul, no way by which cruelties and persecutions can enlighten, strengthen, and ennoble souls.
2. A word, next, to those who desire to be benefited. You may have seers from heaven working among you, endeavoring to improve you and elevate you. But unless you yield to the influences and attend to the counsels, you will grow worse and worse. Pharaoh’s heart grew harder under the ministry of Moses on the banks of the Nile; the Jewish people became worse and worse under the forty years’ ministry in the wilderness, and the contemporaries of Christ filled up their measure of iniquity under his benign and enlightening ministrations. The things that belong to your peace may become the elements of your ruin.D.T.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
2Ki 23:1-14
Josiah’s great reformation.
The narrative of Josiah’s reforms contained in this chapter incorporates several particulars which, if the Book of Chronicles is to be regarded as giving the true chronology, belong to an earlier period. It is next to incredible that, after Jehovah’s worship had been regularly established, such scandals as the prostitution alluded to in 2Ki 23:7, and the horses and chariots of the sun in 2Ki 23:11, should have Been allowed to continue. The narrative in Kings seems specially designed to bring all Josiah’s reforms into one view. We have
I. SOLEMN COVENANTING. After the example of Jehoiada in the reign of Joash (2Ch 23:16), and the still more ancient example of Moses (Deu 29:1-29.), Josiah convened the people together to renew the covenant made with them by God at Sinai (Exo 24:1-8). The covenanting took place appropriately in the house of the Lordanother evidence that the worst abominations had by this time been removed from the temple. All classes were assembled, high and low, priests, prophets, and people. In proposing to them to enter on this solemn engagement, in which he set them the example:
1. The king asked them to do a right thing. It was Israel’s distinction among the peoples of the earth that they stood in covenant with God. God had chosen them as a people for himself, that they should serve him alone in the land he had given them. If they had failed to do this, and, now relented of their disobedience, it was meet that they should acknowledge their transgressions, and anew pledge themselves to be the Lord’s. This was what Josiah desired Judah and Jerusalem”the remnant of God’s inheritance”to do. Standing on a raised platform, he set them the example of covenant. It is a good thing when nations have leaders who are themselves conspicuous examples of godliness, and who point the way in what is right to their people. The propriety of national covenants is a question to be settled by the circumstances of each particular age. The individual Christian, at least, is called to frequent renewal of his vows to God, and such an exercise is peculiarly suitable after seasons of backsliding.
2. He did it on a right basis. The covenant was based on the declarations of “the book of the covenant,” the words of which were first read in the hearing of all the people. Then the people, following the example of their monarch, pledged themselves to walk after the Lord, to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and soul, and to perform the words that were written in the book. Their covenant thus rested on the right foundation, viz. God’s Word. It is God who, in his Word, draws near to us, declares to us his will, holds out his promises, invites us to engagement with himself, and lays down the rule of our obedience. A covenant means nothing save as it springs from faith in, acceptance of, and submission to the revealed Word of God. Our covenanting is to be
(1) intelligentbased on the study of God’s Word, and understanding of its requirements;
(2) cordialwith all the heart and soul; and
(3) dutifulin the spirit of obedience, “to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book.”
3. Yet the engagement was not sincere. It was so in the case of Josiah, but not in the case of the people generally, though it is written, “All the people stood to the covenant.” In lip they honored God, but in heart they were far from him (Isa 29:13). This is evident from the descriptions in the prophets. The movement was not a spontaneous one originating in the hearts of the people themselves, but came down to them from above through the king’s command. The formal ceremonies of covenanting were gone through, and some temporary, and perhaps genuine, enthusiasm was awakened. But there was no real heart-change of the people. Their goodness was like the morning cloud and the early dew (Hos 6:4). This is too often the fats of movements originating with kings, princes, and those in high positions, and not springing from the people’s own initiative. They are popular and fashionable, and draw many after them who have no real sympathy with their aims. But the effects do not endure. Rank, fashion, royalty, the adhesion of the great and mighty and noble of this world (1Co 1:26), do not of themselves make a movement religious, though they may secure for it eclat. The Lord looketh on the heart (1Sa 16:7), and if the essence of religion is wanting, imposing external forms count for little.
II. THE TEMPLE CLEANSED. In the covenant they had just made, the people bound themselves in the most solemn manner to rid the land of all visible traces of idolatry (Exo 23:24; Deu 12:1-3). Josiah took this work in hand more systematically than any king who had gone before’ him (2Ki 23:25). He began with the temple, the thorough purification of which had probably been left over till the repairs above referred to (2Ki 22:1-20.) could be overtaken. Similar zeal for the destruction of idols was manifested at the conclusion of the previous covenant under Joash (2Ch 23:17).
1. A cleansing away of the traces of Baal-worship. In the first place, a careful clearing out was made of all the vessels and utensils that had been used in the service of Baal, or of the Asherah, or of the host of heaven. These were burned in the valley of Kidron, and the ashes of them carried to Bethel, as the appropriate source of this idolatry. The sacred tree itselfthe Asherahwas then cut down, burned in the same valley, and its ashes sprinkled on the graves of the people, many of whom had shared in the guilt of its worship. Afterwards the altars erected to Baal in the temple courts were broken down, and the dust of them cast also into the valley of Kidron (2Ki 23:12). Possibly the Asherah and these altars had been removed, and treated as described, at an earlier date.
2. A cleansing away of the traces of Venus-worship. The Asherah was devoted to the licentious Astarte, and rites the most shameless and abominable had been conducted in the temple courts in honor of this goddess. Houses, even, had been reared close to the sacred enclosure for the bands of depraved men and women who took part in these orgies. Doubtless the worship ere this had been stopped, and the filthy actors driven out, but the houses which remained as a reminder of its existence were now broken down.
3. A cleansing away of the traces of sun-worship. To the worship of the sun and of the host of heaven belonged the sacred horses and chariots (2Ki 23:11), probably ere this removed, and the chariots burned; and the altars on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which successive kings had set up. These, like the altars of Manasseh, were broken down, and their dust scattered in the adjoining valley. Every vestige of idolatry was thus cleansed out of the house of which the Lord had said, “In Jerusalem will I put my Name” (2Ki 21:4).
III. IDOLATRY PUT AWAY. Judgment began at the house of God (1Pe 4:17), but it spread thence throughout the whole land.
1. Degradation of the priests. The land apparently had been already “purged” of the idols, Asherahs, and sun-images, which were worshipped at the high places (2Ch 34:3, 2Ch 34:4). Measures were now taken to degrade the priests who had ministered at these forbidden altars, and through whom, perhaps, the worship was still in many places carried on. These priests were of different kinds.
(1) Some were “idolatrous priests”chemarimafter the fashion of the priests of the northern kingdom. They do not appear to have been of Levitical descent at all, but were “ordained” of the kings of Judah to burn incense in the high places, and may have been drawn, like Jeroboam’s chemarim, from “the lowest of the people” (1Ki 12:31). Some of them were ostensibly priests of Jehovah, serving him, probably, with idolatrous symbols; others served Baal, and the sun, moon, and planets. The whole of this illegitimate class of priests Josiah put sternly downsuppressing their order as contrary to the Law of Moses.
(2) The second class of priests were true Levites, but they ministered at the high places. These were brought from their several cities to Jerusalem, and there provided for out of the temple revenues. They were not, however, permitted to minister at the altar of Jehovah, though, like the other priests, they received their support from the temple offerings. These stringent regulations effectually broke the power of this class throughout the country. God must be served by a pure ministry.
2. Defilement of the high places. The next part of Josiah’s policy was to destroy and defile the high places themselves. One way in which this was done was by covering them with dead men’s bones, or burning dead bones upon them. The high places were thus rendered unclean, and became hateful to the people. Two special acts of defilement are mentioned in addition to that of “the mount of corruption” next referred to, viz.
(1) the defilement of the high places at the entrance of the gate of Joshua; and
(2) the defilement of Topheth in the valley of Hinnom. The real defilement was in the idolatrous and murderous rites with which these places were associated, but Josiah put a special brand of pollution on them, and stamped them as spots to be held in abhorrence for their vileness.
3. The defilement of “the mount of corruption.” Such was the appropriate name given to the hill on which Solomon, long before, had reared altars to the heathen gods worshipped by his wivesAshtoreth, Chemosh, Moloch, etc. The high places of that mount, which directly overlooked Jerusalem, did Josiah now defile. Idolatry is none the less pernicious that it has the sanction of a great name, and flaunts itself under the guise of a spurious toleration. Any spot where God is not worshipped, but idols are set up in his place, soon becomes a mount of corruption. Heathenism is a mount of corruption. Godless civilization will become a mount of corruption. Our very hearts will turn to mounts of corruption if we allow God to be dethroned in them.
IV. LESSONS OF THE REFORMATION.
1. From what it did accomplish. Josiah’s was a true “zeal for the Lord.” He was actuated by a right motive, guided himself strictly by God’s Word, and directed his efforts unswervingly to execute God’s will. He wrought earnestly to purify his state from the evils that afflicted it, and to restore the influence of pure and undefiled religion. He deserves our highest admiration for the
(1) determination,
(2) energy,
(3) method, and
(4) thoroughness with which he did God’s work.
Externally, his work was a success. He cleansed the land from idolatry, we, too, have a call to labor for the purification of society, the dethronement of idols, and the spread of true religion. The age of idolatry is not past. Church, state, literature, science, art, have all their idols. There is self-idolatry, nature-idolatry, wealth-idolatry, art-idolatry, the idolatry of genius, and many more worships besides. Our own hearts are abodes of idols. We do well to imitate Josiah in the energy and thoroughness with which he labored to uproot these false gods. We should be unsparing in our judgment Of whatever vice, error, evil lusts, or passions, or inclinations, or tendencies, we discover in ourselves. Let high thoughts be mercilessly brought low, and proud imaginations abased (2Co 10:5). Wherever sin is detected, let it be yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge!”
2. From what it did not accomplish. This reformation of Josiah wrought, after all, only on the exterior of the nation’s life. It lacked power to reach the heart. Therefore it failed to regenerate or save the nation. We are thus pointed to the need of a better covenant, that which Jeremiah predicts in 2 Kings 31:31-34 of his prophecies, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts,” etc.J.O.
2Ki 23:15-20
The altar at Bethel.
From Judah Josiah passed on to Israel, continuing his work of idol-demolition. Everywhere he went he proved himself a veritable “hammer of God”leveling, defacing, dishonoring, destroying.
I. AN ANCIENT PROPHECY FULFILLED.
1. Iconoclasm at Bethel. Bethel had been the chief scene of Israel’s idolatrythe head and front of its offending (cf. Hos 4:15; Hos 10:4-9, etc.). On it Josiah’s zeal first expended itself. Hosea had prophesied its desolation, the destruction of its high places, the carrying away of its calf, the cessation of its mirth and feasts, its abandonment to thorns and nettles (Hos 2:11; Hos 9:6; Hos 10:8, etc.). But an older voice had foretold the end from the beginning. Scarcely had the schismatic altar, with its calf, been set up, when a prophet out of Judah denounced Jeroboam’s sin to his face, and proclaimed that a future king would stain the altar-stones with the blood of the priests, and defile it by burning dead men’s bones upon it. A sign had been given in confirmation of the truth of the prediction (1Ki 13:1-10). That oracle stood at the head of the way of transgression, warning men away from it; but its voice had been unheeded. Now, centuries after, the prediction was fulfilled. Idolatry in some form still held its ground on the ancient spot, but Josiah put an end to it. The altar and high place he broke down, and burned the high place, and reduced it to powder, and burned the Asherah. The idolatry at Bethel had wrought out its effects in the ruin of the state. That evil was irremediable, but Josiah could show at least his detestation of the sin, and his determination that no more evil should be wrought, by totally demolishing the sanctuary. Special regard should be paid to the removal of centers of wickedness. It is useless to capture outworks, if strongholds are left standing. We should not rest content till the very name and memory of sin has perished in places that were conspicuous for it.
2. The sepulcher invaded. Josiah would have no half-measures. It was part of his settled policy, not simply to break down the high places, but to defile them, and unfit them for future use. In looking round him at Bethel for means to accomplish this end, he spied the sepulchers that were in the mount, and sent and took bones out of the sepulchers, and polluted the altar by burning them upon it. His immediate design was to defile the altar, but in taking the bones to burn, he dishonored also the ashes of the dead. In his consuming zeal against idolatry he felt that no respect was due to the bones of those who, by their sins, had brought death upon the nation. It is easy to blame the act, and to compare it with the ruthless violations of the sanctity of the grave of which persecutors have often been guilty. It seems a paltry and vindictive proceeding to wreak one’s vengeance on the dead. To Josiah, however, no sanctity attached to these graves, but only a curse. His very object was to do deeds which would make men feel, as they had never felt before, the hateful nature of idolatry, and the certainty of a Nemesis attending it. In having their bones dragged out and burned upon the altar, the dead idolaters were, in a sense, making atonement to God’s insulted majesty (cf. Jer 8:1-3). The feeling, nevertheless, is one which might easily go too far, and be mixed up with mean and purely spiteful motives. However it might be under Jewish law, it can hardly be right now. None the less is it the case that a curse rests upon the very bones of the wicked dead. Death to them is the penal stroke of God’s displeasure, and, when they rise, it is to the resurrection of damnation (Joh 5:29).
II. THE BONES OF THE PROPHET RESPECTED.
1. A monument in a wicked place to a good man. Among the tombs which Josiah beheld was one with a monument before it. He asked whose it was, and was told it was the monument of the man of God who prophesied of these things which had been done to the altar. That monument had, perhaps, been built by the hands of the very men whose sins ‘the prophet had denounced, so great oftentimes is human inconsistency (cf. Mat 23:28-30). In any case, it stood there for centuries a silent witness against the iniquities that were perpetrated in its presence. Monuments to prophets, martyrs, saints, still crowd our burial and public places; we pay external honor to their memories; but what God will ask of us isDo we imitate their spirit? As great men recede into the distance, it becomes easy to pay them reverence. These idolatrous Israelites no doubt magnified their descent from Abraham, and boasted of their great lawgiver Moses, at the very time that they were breaking his commandments. When the prophets were among them, they sought to kill them; then they built monuments in their honor.
2. A solitary witness for truth justified by the event. This prophet in his day stood alone. Even among the dead he lay alone. The multitudes around him were not those who believed, but those who had disregarded his word. If ever man was in a minority, he was. Century after century rolled by, and still the word he had spoken remained unfulfilled. Did it not seem as if the oracle were about to fail? But Wisdom in the end is justified of her children (Mat 11:19). The prophet’s word came true at last, and it was seen and acknowledged of all that he was right. Thus is it with all God’s true servants. We should not concern ourselves too much with man’s gainsaying. We have but to bear our testimony and leave the issues with God. He will at length vindicate us.
3. Discrimination between good and bad. When Josiah learned whose the sepulcher was, he gave command that his bones should not be touched, nor yet the bones of the old prophet who was buried along with him (1Ki 13:31). The righteous was discriminated from the sinners. So shall it be at the last day. No confusion will be made in the resurrection between good and bad. While the wicked come forth to the resurrection of judgment, the good shall come forth to the resurrection of life (Joh 5:29). A gracious Savior watches over their dust.
III. THE SLAUGHTER OF THE PRIESTS.
1. General demolition. The wave of destruction spread from Bethel over all the other high places in the cities of Samaria. Josiah’s procession through the land was the signal for the overthrow of every species of idolatry. “So did he,” we are told, “in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even unto Naphtali, in their ruins round about” (2Ch 34:6).
2. Priests of the high places slain. In connection with this progress of Josiah through Israel is mentioned the fact that “he slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars,” If this stern policy had been confined to Israel, it would have been difficult to exculpate Josiah from partiality in his carrying out of the provisions of the Law; but the words in Chronicles imply that the like was, at least in some places, done in Judah also (2Ch 34:5). In what he did he was no doubt strictly within the letter of the Law, which he and the people had sworn to obey, for that undeniably denounced death against idolaters (Deu 13:1-18; etc.). To equal his act, therefore, with Manasseh’s shedding of innocent blood is to miss the essential fact of the situation. This was not innocent blood by the fundamental law of the constitution. It is probably with reference to this, as to ether parts of his conduct, that Josiah gets special praise for the fidelity of his obedience to the Law of Moses (verse 25). It does not follow that his conduct is such as Christians, living under a milder and better dispensation, should now imitate. It does not even follow that every individual act which Josiah did was beyond blame. His human judgment may have erred at times on the side of severity. The holiest movements are not free from occasional excesses; but we should judge the movement by the soul which actuates it, and not by its superficial excrescences.J.O.
2Ki 23:21-28
The reformation completed, yet Israel’s sin not pardoned.
We have in these verses
I. THE GREAT PASSOVER.
1. A seal of the covenant. This great year of reformation began with a covenant, and ended with a Passover. The ceremonies of the occasion are fully described in 2Ch 35:1-27. The Passover in the Old Testament was in some respects very much what the Lord’s Supper is in the New, It took the people back to the origin of their history, revived vivid memories of the deliverance from Egypt, and ratified their engagement to be the Lord’s. It reminded of the past, set a seal upon the present, and gave a pledge for the future. The Christian sacrament seals God’s promises to the believer, and, at the same time, seals the believer’s covenant with God. It establishes, nourishes, and strengthens the life received in the new birth.
2. An historic celebration. “Surely there was not holden such a Passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel,” etc. A true religious awakening shows itself
(1) in increased interest in God’s ordinances;
(2) in stricter fidelity in observing them; and
(3) in joyful alacrity in taking advantage of them.
II. FIDELITY TO MOSES.
1. Cleansing away the concomitants of idolatry. Together with the idols, Josiah cleansed out of the land the tribes of wizards, necromancers, soothsayers, etc; who found their profit in the ignorance and superstition of the people. Where Bible religion returns, Sanity returns. The hideous specters begotten of fear and superstition vanish. Josiah further carefully eradicated any remaining traces of idol-worship that could be “spied.”
2. Pre-eminent fidelity. In these deeds, and by his whole course as a reformer, Josiah earned for himself the distinction of being the most faithful king that had yet reigned. He and Hezekiah stand out pre-eminent the one for trust in God (2Ki 18:5), the other for fidelity to the Law of Moses. “Like unto him was there no king before him,” etc. Like gems, each of which has its special beauty and excels in its own kind, these two kings shine above all the rest. Only one character exhibits all spiritual excellences in perfection.
III. ISRAEL‘S SIN YET UNPARDONED.
1. God‘s unappeased anger. “Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath,” etc. The sole reason of this was that, notwithstanding the zealous Josiah’s reforms, the people had not in heart turned from their great sins. The spirit of Manasseh still lived in them. They were unchanged in heart, and, with favoring circumstances, were as ready to break out into idolatry as ever. The outward face of things was improved as regards religion, but social injustice and private morals were as bad as ever. Hence the Lord could not, and would not, turn from his wrath. It is real, not lip, repentance that God requires to turn away his auger from us. We see:
(1) The posthumous influence of evil. “One sinner destroyeth much good” (Ecc 9:18). Manasseh’s deeds lived after him. His repentance could not recall the mischief they had done to the nation. They went working on after his decease, propagating and multiplying their influence, till the nation was destroyed.
(2) The righteousness of individuals cannot save an unrighteous people. Not even though these righteous persons are high in rank, are deeply concerned for the revival of religion, and labor with all their hearts to stem the tide of corruption. Their piety and prayers may delay judgment, but if impenitence is persisted in, they cannot finally avert it (cf. Jer 15:1, “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people”).
2. God‘s unshaken purpose. “I will remove Judah also out of my sight,” etc. Terrible is the severity of God when his forbearance is exhausted. Moral laws are inexorable. If the spiritual conditions, by which only a change could be effected, are wanting, they work on till the sinner is utterly destroyed.J.O.
2Ki 23:29-37
Pharaoh-Nechoh and the Jewish kings.
A new power had risen in Egypt which was to play a temporary, but influential, part in the evolution of God’s purposes towards Judah. Assyria was at this time in its death-agonies. The scepter of empire was soon to pass to Babylon. But it was Pharaoh-Nechoh who, following the designs of his own ambition, was to set in motion a train of events which had the effect of bringing Judah within the power of the King of Babylon.
I. THE DEATH OF JOSIAH.
1. Circumstances of his death. Taking advantage of the troubles in the East, Pharaoh-Nechoh was bent on securing his own supremacy over Syria and extending it as far as the river Euphrates. He disclaimed all intention of inter-feting with Josiah (2Ch 35:21), but that monarch thought it his duty to oppose him. It was a perilous venture, and Josiah seems to have entered upon it somewhat rashly. He certainly had not prophetic sanction for the enterprise. The issue was as might have been anticipated. He encountered Pharaoh-Nechoh at Megiddo, and was disastrously defeated. Wounded by the archers, he bade his servants carry him away, and, placing him in another chariot, they drove him off. It is to be inferred from Zec 12:11 that he died at “Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddo,” and that his dead body was afterwards brought to Jerusalem. By this defeat Judah was brought into subjection to Pharaoh-Nechoh, and the way prepared for its subjection to Nebuchadnezzar, when he, in turn, became master of the situation. It is wise not unduly to meddle with the quarrels of other nations.
2. Mourning for his death. The untimely death of Josiah was a cause of unexampled mourning throughout the whole land. The affection with which his people regarded him, and the confidence they placed in him, are strikingly shown by the sorrow felt at his loss. The mourning at Hadadrimmon is used by the prophet to illustrate the mourning which will take place at the national repentance of Israel in the times of the Messiah (Zec 12:9-14). It was as the mourning for a firstborn. Jeremiah composed an elegy for the good king departed, and the singing-men and singing, women kept up the practice of lamenting for him even unto the Captivity (2Ch 35:24, 2Ch 35:25). Well might Judah mourn. Josiah was the last great and good king they would see. But infinitely better would it have been if their sorrow had been the “godly sorrow” which “worketh repentance” (2Co 7:10). This unfortunately it was not, as the result showed. It is because it was not that, the mourning of Hadadrimmon will have to be done over again (Zec 12:10), next time in a very different spirit. We see that it is possible to lament good men, yet not profit by their example. The best tribute we can pay the just is to live like them.
3. Providential aspects of his death.
(1) An irreparable loss to the nation, Josiah’s death was yet great gain to himself. It was God s way of taking him away from the evil to come, and so of fulfilling the promise given by Huldah (2Ki 22:20). Josiah, perhaps, erred in taking the step he did, but while God punished him for his error, he providentially overruled the event for his good. Death is sometimes a blessing. It may hide things from our eyes we had rather not see; as, in the case of the good, it translates to scenes of bliss beyond human conception. “The dark things” of God’s providence are these in which we may ultimately recognize the greatest mercy. “Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,” etc.
(2) In regard to the nation, the providential aspects of this death were widely different. It took from them a gift which they had failed to prize, or at least to profit by. It was, moreover, a step in Providence towards the fulfillment of the threatenings of captivity. Pharaoh-Nechoh’s conquest was the gate through which Nebuchadnezzar entered.
II. THE DEPOSITION OF JEHOAHAZ.
1. A brief reign. In virtue of the defeat of Josiah, Judah became ipso facto a dependency of Pharaoh-Nechoh. The people, however, were in no mood to acknowledge this subjection, and immediately set about making a king for themselves. They passed by Eliakim, Josiah’s eldest son, and raised the next son, Shallum (Jer 22:11), to the throne under the name of Jehoahaz. The younger son was probably the more spirited and warlike of the two. Ezekiel compares him to a young lion (Eze 19:3). Under him the nation cast off the restraints of thee reign of Josiah, and reverted to its former sinful ways. It does not suffice to make a good king that he has
(1) a good father”the son of Josiah;”
(2) a good nameJehoahaz, “he whom the Lord sustains;” or
(3) a solemn anointingthey “anointed him”
The people probably thought otherwise, for it was they, apparently, who gave him this name, and took the step of formally consecrating him with the anointing oil Anointing oil, without the grace which it symbolizes, of little use. Jehoahaz was permitted to possess his throne only for three brief months.
2. A hard captivity. By the end of the period named, Pharaoh-Nechoh was sufficiently free to attend to the proceedings at Jerusalem. The city had flouted his supremacy, and he did not let it escape. His own camp was at Riblah, but he sent to Jerusalem, required Jehoahaz to attend his court at Riblah, there put him in chains, and carried him with him into Egypt (Eze 19:4). This was a worse fate than Josiah’s. “Weep ye not for the dead,” said Jeremiah, “neither bemoan him: but weep sore for him that goeth away: for he shall return no more, nor see his native country.” (Jer 22:10). This captivity of Jehoahaz was a prelude to the captivity of the nationthe first drop of the shower soon about to fall. Yet the people would not hearken.
3. A heavy tribute. In addition to removing the king, Pharaoh-Nechoh put the land under a tribute. He exacted a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. Again we see how sin works out bondage, misery, and disgrace. An oft-read lesson, but how impossible, apparently, for this people to learn!
III. JEHOIAKIM‘S VASSALAGE.
1. Egypt dictates a king. Once again, as in the earliest period of their history, Israel was in bondage to Egypt. Pharaoh-Nechoh used his power unsparingly. The eldest son of Josiah, who seems not to have been a favorite with the people, was willing to accept the throne as a vassal, and him, accordingly, Nechoh made king, changing his name, in token of subjection, from Eliakim to Jehoiakim. How bitter the satireJehoiakim, “he whom Jehovah has set up!”
2. Jehoiakim becomes Egypt‘s tool. Jehoiakim had, perhaps, no alternative but to give “the silver and the gold to Pharaoh,” but in his manner of exacting it he showed himself the willing tool of the oppressor. To obtain the money, he put heavy taxation on the people. His rule was a bitter, ignominious, and oppressive one for Judah. Jeremiah says of him, “But thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence, to do it” (Jer 22:17). But such are the kings men must submit to when they reject God for their Sovereign. In a moral respect Jehoiakim’s reign was “evil,” and in a temporal respect it was the stumbling on from one misfortune to another.J.O.
2Ki 24:1-20
EXPOSITION
2Ki 24:1-20
REIGNS OF JEHOIAKIM, JEHOIACHIN, AND ZEDEKIAH.
2Ki 24:1-7
REST OF THE REIGN OF JEHOIAKIM. Troubles now fell thick and fast upon Judaea. Within three years of the invasion of the country by Pharaoh-Nechoh, another hostile army burst in from the north. In B.C. 605, the last year of Nabopolassar, he sent his eldest son, Nebuchadnezzar, into Syria, to assert the dominion of Babylon over the countries lying between the Euphrates and the frontier of Egypt. Nechoh sought to defend his conquests, but was completely defeated at Carehemish in a great battle (Jer 46:2-12). Syria and Palestine then lay open to the new invader, and, resistance being regarded as hopeless, Jehoiakim made his submission to Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 24:1). But, three years later, sustained by what hope we know not, he ventured on an act of rebellion, and declared himself independent. Nebuchadnezzar did not at once march against him, but caused him to be attacked, as it would seem, by his neighbors (2Ki 24:2). A war without important result continued for four years. Titan Nebuchadnezzar came up against him in person for a second time (2Ch 36:6), took Jerusalem, and made Jehoiakim prisoner. He designed at first to carry him to Babylon; but seems to have afterwards determined to have him executed, and to have treated his corpse with indignities (Jer 22:30; Jer 36:30). The writer of Kings throws a veil over these transactions, closing his narrative with the customary phraseJehoiakim “slept with his fathers” (2Ki 24:6).
2Ki 24:1
In his days Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came up. The Hebrew (Nebuchadnezzar) or (Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) represents the Babylonian Nabu-kudur-uzur (“Nebo is the protector of landmarks”), a name very common in the Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions. It was borne by three distinct kings of Babylon, the most important of whom was Nebuchadnezzar III; the son of Nabopolassar, the monarch of the present passage. According to Berosus, he was not at the time of this expedition the actual sovereign of Babylonia, but only the crown prince, placed by the actual king, Nabopolassar, at the head of his army. It is possible that his father may have associated him in the kingdom, for association was not unknown at Babylon; or the Jews may have mistaken his position; or the historian may call him king by prolepsis, as a modern might say, “The Emperor Napoleon invaded Italy and defeated the Austrians at Marengo”. His father had grown too old and infirm to conduct a military expedition, and consequently sent his son in his place, with the object of chastising Nechoh, and recovering the territory whereof Nechoh had made himself master three years before (see 2Ki 23:29-33, and compare below, 2Ki 23:7). And Jehoiakim became his servanti.e. submitted to him, and became a tributary kingthree years: then he turned and rebelled against him. How Jehoiakim came to venture on this step we are not told, and can only conjecture. It is, perhaps, most probable that (as Josephus says, ‘Ant. Jud.’ 10.6, 2) he was incited to take this course by the Egyptians, who were still under the rule of the brave and enterprising Nechoh, and who may have hoped to wipe out by fresh victories the disaster experienced at Carehemish. There is, perhaps, an allusion to Jehoiakim’s expectation of Egyptian succors in the statement of 2Ki 24:7, that “the King of Egypt came not again any more out of his land.”
2Ki 24:2
And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldees. That Nebuchadnezzar did not promptly march against Jehoiakim to suppress his rebellion, but contented himself with sending against him a few “bands” () of Chaldeans, and exciting the neighboring Syrians, Ammonites, and Moabites to invade and ravage his territory, can scarcely be otherwise accounted for than by supposing that he was detained in Middle Asia by wars or rebellious nearer home. It may have been a knowledge of these embarrassments that induced Jehoiakim to lend an ear to the persuasions of Nechoh. And bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon (comp. Eze 19:8, “Then the nations set against him on every side from the provinces, and spread their net over him: he was taken in their pit”), and sent them against Judah to destroy iti.e. to begin that waste and ruin which should terminate ultimately in the complete destruction and obliteration of the Judaean kingdomaccording to the word of the Lord, which he spoke by his servants the prophets. As Isaiah, Micah, Habakkuk, Jeremiah, Zephaniah, and Huldah (see 2Ki 22:16-20).
2Ki 24:3
Surely at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah; literally, only at the mouth of the Lord did this come upon Judah; i.e. there was no other cause for it but the simple “mouth” or “word” of the Lord. The LXX; who translate , seem to have had instead of in their copies. To remove them out of his sight for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did. The meaning is not that the nation was punishes for the personal sins and crimes of the wicked Manseseh forty or fifty years previously, but that the class of sins introduced by Manasseh, being persisted in by the people, brought the stern judgments of God upon them. As W. G. Sumner well observes, “The sins of Manasseh had become a designation for a certain class of offences, and a particular form of public and social depravity, which was introduced by Manassseh, but of which generation after generation continued to be guilty.” The special sins were
(1) idolatry, accompanied by licentious rites;
(2) child-murder, or sacrifice to Moloch;
(3) sodomy (2Ki 23:7); and
(4) the use of enchantments and the practice of magical arts (2Ki 21:6).
2Ki 24:4
And also for the innocent blood that he shed. Like the other “sins of Manasseh,” the shedding of innocent blood continued, both in the Moloch offerings (Jer 7:31) and in the persecution of the righteous (Jer 7:6, Jer 7:9, etc.). Urijah was actually put to death by Jehoiakim (Jer 26:23); Jeremiah narrowly escaped. For he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the Lord would not pardon. Blood “cries to God from the ground” on which it falls (Gen 4:11), and is “required” at the hands of the bloodshedder (Gen 9:5) unfailingly. Especially is the blood of saints slain for their religion avenged and exacted by the Most High (see Rev 6:10; Rev 11:18; Rev 16:6; Rev 19:2, etc.).
2Ki 24:5
Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim; and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Among the acts of Jehoiakim recorded elsewhere in the Old Testament, the most remarkable are the following:
(1) His execution of Urijah the son of Shemaiah (Jer 26:23);
(2) his destruction of the first collection of the early prophecies made by Jeremiah, in a fit of anger at hearing its contents (Jer 36:20-23);
(3) his order that Jeremiah and Baruch should be arrested (Jer 36:26);
(4) his capture by some of the “nations” which Nebuchadnezzar had stirred up against him, and delivery into the hands of that monarch (Eze 19:9), probably at Jerusalem. How Nebuchadnezzar treated him is uncertain. Josephus says (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.6. 3) that he put him to death, and east him out unburied beyond the walls of the city. But from the biblical notices we can only gather that he died prematurely after a reign of no more than eleven years, and was u-lamented, “buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jer 22:18, Jer 22:19). Conjecture has filled up the blanks of this history in several ways, the most purely imaginative being, perhaps, that of Ewald, who says, “When the Chaldean armies presented themselves at the gates of the capital, Jehoiakim seems to have been betrayed into the same error as his brother (Jehoahaz), eleven years before. He gave ear to a crafty invitation of the enemy to repair for negotiations to their camp, where, in sight of his own city, he was made prisoner. He offered a frantic resistance, and was dragged away in a scuffle, and miserably cut down; while even an honorable burial for his corpse, which his family certainly solicited, was refused.”
2Ki 24:6
So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers. It is not certain that the writer means anything more by this than that “Jehoiakim died.” His body may, however, possibly have been found by the Jews after the Babylonians had withdrawn from before Jerusalem, and have been entombed with those of Manasseh, Amen, and Josiah. And Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead, Josephus says (l.s.c.) that Nebuchadnezzar placed him upon the throne, which is likely enough, since he would certainly not have quitted Jerusalem without setting up some king or other. Jehoiachin has in Scripture the two other names of Jeconiah (1Ch 3:16, 1Ch 3:17; Jer 27:20; Jer 28:4; Jer 29:2) and Coniah (Jer 22:24, Jer 22:28; Jer 37:1). Jehoiachin and Jeconiah differ only, as Jehoahaz and Ahaziah, by a reversal of the order of the two elements. Both mean “Jehovah will establish (him).” “Coniah” cuts off from “Jeconiah” the sign of futurity, and means “Jehovah establishes.” It is used only by Jeremiah, and seems used by him to signify that though “Jehovah establishes,” Jeconiah he would not establish.
2Ki 24:7
And the King of Egypt earns not again any mere out of his land. Nechoh’s two expeditions were enough for him. In the first he was completely successful, defeated Josiah (2Ki 23:29), overran Syria as far as Carchemish, and made Phoenicia, Judaea, and probably the adjacent countries tributary to him. In the second (Jer 46:2-12) he suffered a calamitous reverse, was himself defeated with great slaughter, forced to fly hastily, and to relinquish all his conquests. After this, he “came not any more out of his land.” Whatever hopes he held out to Judaea or to Tyre, he was not bold enough to challenge the Babylonians to a third trial of strength, but remainedpeaceably within his own borders. For the King of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt. The is not the Nile, but the Wady el Arish, the generally dry watercourse, which was the ordinarily accepted boundary between Egypt and Syria (see 1Ki 8:65; Isa 27:12). The Nile is the . Unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the King of Egypt; i.e. all that he had conquered and made his own in his first expedition in the year B.C. 608.
2Ki 24:8-16
REIGN OF JEHOIACHIN. The short reign of Jehoisshin is now described. It lasted but three months. For some reason which is unrecorded, Nebuchadnezzar, who had placed him on the throne, took offence at his conduct, and sent an army against him to effect his deposition. Jehoiachin offered scarcely any resistance. He “went out” of the city (2Ki 24:12), with the queen-mother, the officers of the court, and the princes, and submitted himself to the will of the great king. But he gained nothing by his pusillanimity. The Babylonians entered Jerusalem, plundered the temple and the royal palace, made prisoners of the king, his mother, the princes and nobles, the armed garrison, and all the more skilled artisans, to the number altogether of ten thousand souls (Josephus says 10,832, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.7. 1), and carried them captive to Babylon. Zedekiah, the king’s uncle, was made monarch in his room.
2Ki 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign. In 2Ch 36:9 he is said to have been only eight years old, but this is probably an accidental corruption, the yod, which is the Hebrew sign for ten, easily slipping out. As he had “wives” (2Ch 36:15) and “seed” (Jer 22:28), he could not well be less than eighteen. And he reigned in Jerusalem three months. “Three months and ten days,” according to 2 Chronicles (l.s.c.) and Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ l.s.c.). And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. Elnathan was one of the chief of the Jerusalem princes under Jehoiakim (Jer 26:22; Jer 36:12, Jer 36:25). His daughter, Nehushtathe Noste of Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.6. 3)was probably the ruling spirit of the time during her son’s short reign. We find mention of her in Jer 26:1-24 :26; Jer 29:2; and in Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.6. 3, and 10.7. 1. Ewald suggests that she “energetically supported” her son in the policy whereby he offended Nebuchadnezzar.
2Ki 24:9
And he did that which was evil the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done. Josephus says that Jehoiachin was (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.7. 1); but Jeremiah calls him “a despised broken idol,” and “a vessel wherein is no pleasure” (Jer 22:28). The present passage probably does not mean more than that he made no attempt at a religious reformation, but allowed the idolatries and superstitions which had prevailed under Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim to continue. It is in his favor that he did not actively persecute Jeremiah.
2Ki 24:10
At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came up against Jerusalem. This siege fell probably into the year B.C. 597, which was “the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar” (2Ki 24:12). Nebuchadnezzar himself was, at the time, engaged in the siege of Tyre, which had revolted in B.C. 598, and therefore sent his “servants”i.e. generalsagainst Jerusalem. And the city was besieged. Probably for only a short time. Jeconiah may at first have had some hope of support from Egypt, still under the rule of Nechoh; but when no movement was made in this quarter (see the comment on 2Ki 24:7), he determined not to provoke his powerful enemy by an obstinate resistance, but to propitiate him, if possible, by a prompt surrender.
2Ki 24:11
And Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it; rather, his servants were besieging it. While the siege conducted by his generals was still going on, Nebuchadnezzar made his appearance in person before the walls, probably bringing with him an additional force, which made a successful resistance hopeless. A council of war was no doubt held under the new circumstances, and a surrender was decided on.
2Ki 24:12
And Jehoiachin the King of Judah went out to the King of Babylon (for the use of the expression, “went out to,” in this sense of making a surrender, see 1Sa 11:3; Jer 21:9; Jer 38:17, etc.), he, and his mother (see the comment on 2Ki 24:8), and his servants, and his princes, and his officersrather, his eunuchs (see the comment on 2Ki 20:18) and the King of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign. Nebuchadnezzar succeeded his father, Nabopelassar, in B.C. 605; but his first year was not complete till late in B.C. 604. His “eighth year” was thus B.C. 597.
2Ki 24:13
And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord. “Thence” means “from Jerusalem,” which he entered and plundered, notwithstanding Jehoiachin’s submission, so that not much was gained by the voluntary surrender. A beginning had been made of the carrying off the sacred vessels of the temple in Jehoiakim’s third (fourth?) year (Dan 1:1), which was the first of Nebuchadnezzar. The plundering was now carried a step further; while the final complete sweep of all that remained came eleven years later, at the end of the reign of Zedekiah (see 2Ki 25:13-17). And the treasures of the king’s house. If the treasures which Hezekiah showed to the envoys of Merodach-Baladan were carried off by Sennacherib (2Ki 18:15), still there had probably been fresh accumulations made during their long reigns by Manasseh and Josiah. And out in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon King of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord. (For an account of these vessels, see 1Ki 7:45-50.) They consisted in part of articles of furniture, like the altar of incense and the table of shrewbread, which were thickly covered with plates of gold; in part of vessels, etc; made wholly of the precious metal, as candlesticks, or rather candelabra, snuffers, tongs, basins, spoons, censers, and the like. As the Lord had said.
2Ki 24:14
And he carried away all Jerusalem. The expression has to be limited by what follows. “All Jerusalem” means all that was important in the population of Jerusalem all the upper classes, the “princes” and “nobles,” all the men trained to the use of arms, and all the skilled craftsmen and artisans of the city. The poor and weak and unskilled were left. The number deported, according to our author, was either ten or eleven thousand. The whole population of the ancient city has been calculated from its area at fifteen thousand. The largest estimate of the population of the modern city is seventeen thousand. And all the princes. The sarim, or “princes,” are not males of the blood royal, but the nobles, or upper classes of Jerusalem (comp. Jer 25:18; Jer 26:10-16, etc.). And all the mighty men of valori.e. “all the trained troops” (Ewald); not “all the men of wealth,” as Bahr renderseven ten thousand captives. As the soldiers are reckoned below (2Ki 24:16) at seven thousand, and the craftsmen at one thousand, the upper-class captives would seem to have been two thousand; unless, indeed, the “craftsmen” are additional to the ten thousand, in which Case the upper-class captives would have numbered three thousand, and the prisoners have amounted altogether to eleven thousand. And all the craftsmen and smiths. Ewald understands “the military workmen and siege engineers” to be intended; but the term in Hebrew includes all workers in stone, metal, or wood (Gen 4:22; Isa 44:12; 1Ki 7:14), and there is nothing to limit it here to military craftsmen. It was an Oriental practice to weaken a state by the deportation of all the stronger elements of its population. None remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. These words must be taken with some latitude. There are still “princes” in Jerusalem under Zedekiah (Jer 38:4, Jer 38:25, Jer 38:27), and courtiers of rank (Jer 38:7), and “captains of forces” (Jer 40:7), and “men of war” (Jer 52:7). But the bulk of the inhabitants now left behind in Jerusalem were poor and of small account.
2Ki 24:15
And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon. Jehoiachin continued a captive in Babylon during the remainder of Nebuchadnezzar’s reigna space of thirty-seven years (see the comment on 2Ki 25:27). And the king’s mother (see above, 2Ki 24:12), and the king’s wivesthis is important, as helping to determine Jehoiachin’s ago (see the comment on 2Ki 24:8)and his officersrather, his eunuchs (comp. Jer 38:7; Jer 39:16)and the mighty of the land. Not only the “princes” and the trained soldiers and the skilled artisans (2Ki 24:14), but all who were of much account, as the bulk of the priests and the prophets (see Jer 29:1-24). Those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. “Babylon” () is the city, not the country (as Thenius imagines). It was the practice for the conquering kings to carry their captives with them to their capital, for ostentation’s sake, before determining on their destination. The Jewish prisoners were, no doubt, ultimately settled in various parts of Babylonia. Hence they are called (Ezr 2:1; Neh 7:6) “the children of the province.”
2Ki 24:16
And all the men of mighti.e. “The mighty men of valor” (or, “trained soldiers”) of 2Ki 24:14even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for warthe craftsmen and smiths would be pressed into the military service in the event of a siegeeven them the Zing of Babylon brought captive to Babylon; i.e. he brought to Babylon, not only the royal personages, the officials of the court, and the captives who belonged to the upper classes (2Ki 24:15), but also the entire military force which he had deported, and the thousand skilled artificers. All, without exception, were conducted to the capital.
2Ki 24:17-20
EARLIER PORTION OF ZEDEKIAH‘S REIGN. Nebuchadnezzar found a son of Josiah, named Mattaniah, still surviving at Jerusalem. At his father’s death he must have been a boy of ten, but he was now, eleven years later, of the age of twenty-one. This youth, only three years older than his nephew Jehoiachin, he appointed king, at the same time requiring him to change his name, which he did from “Mattaniah” to “Zedekiah” (2Ki 24:17). Zedekiah pursued nearly the same course of action as the other recent kings. He showed no religious zeal, instituted no reform, but allowed the idolatrous practices, to which the people were so addicted, to continue (2Ki 24:19). Though less irreligious and less inclined to persecute than Jehoiakim, he could not bring himself to turn to God. He was weak and vacillating, inclined to follow the counsels of Jeremiah, but afraid of the “princes,” and ultimately took their advice, which was to ally himself with Egypt, and openly rebel against Nebuchadnezzar. This course of conduct brought about the destruction of the nation (verse 29).
2Ki 24:17
And the King of Babylon made Mattaniah his father’s brother king in his stead. Josiah had four sons (1Ch 3:15)Johanan, the eldest, who probably died before his father; Jehoiakim, or Eliakim, the second, who was twenty-five years old at his father’s death (2Ki 23:36); Jehoahaz, the third, otherwise called Shallum (1 Chronicles, l.s.c.; Jer 22:11), who, when his father died, was aged twenty-three (2 Kings 32:31); and Mattaniah, the youngest, who must have been then aged ten or nine. It was this fourth son, now grown to manhood, whom Nebuchadnezzar appointed king in Jehoiachin’s room. And changed his name to Zedekiah. (On the practice of changing a king’s name on his accession, see the comment upon 2Ki 23:31, 2Ki 23:34.) Mat-lab means “Gift of Jehovah;” Zedekiah, “Righteousness of Jehovah.” Josiah had called his son the first of these names in humble acknowledgment of God’s mercy in granting him a fourth son. So other pious Jews called their sons “Nathaniel,” and Greeks “Theodotus” or “Theodorus,” and Romans “Deodatua.” Mattaniah, in taking the second of the names, may have had in his mind the prophecy of Jer 23:5-8, where blessings are promised to the reign of a king whose name should be “Jehovah-Tsidkenu,” i.e. “The Lord our Righteousness.” Or he may simply have intended to declare that “the righteousness of Jehovah” was what he aimed at establishing. In this case it can only be said that it would have been happy for his country, had his professions been corroborated by his acts.
2Ki 24:18
Zedekiah was twenty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem; Probably from B.C. 597 to B.C. 586. He was thus contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, with Cyaxares and Astyages in Media, and with Psamatik II. and Ua-ap-ra (Pharaoh-Hophra) in Egypt. And his mother’s name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. He was thus full brother of Jehoahaz (2Ki 23:31), but only half-brother to Jehoiakim (2Ki 23:36). His father-in-law, “Jeremiah of Libnah” is not the prophet, who was of Anathoth.
2Ki 24:19
And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that Jehoiakim had done. Keil says, “His attitude towards the Lord exactly resembled that of his brother Jehoiakim, except that Zedekiah does not appear to have possessed so much energy for that which was evil.” He allowed the people to continue their “pollutions” and” abominations” (2Ch 36:14). He let the “princes” have their way, and do whatever they pleased (Jer 38:5), contenting himself with sometimes outwitting them, and counteracting their proceeding (Jer 38:14-28). He fell into the old error of “putting trust in Egypt” (Jer 37:5-7), and made an alliance with Apries (Pharaoh-Hophra), which was an act of rebellion, at once against God and against his Babylonian suzerain. He was, upon the whole, rather weak than wicked; but his weakness was as ruinous to his country as active wickedness would have been.
2Ki 24:20
For through the anger of the Lord it came to pus in Jerusalem and Judah. It was “through the auger of the Lord” at the persistent impenitence of the people, that that came to pass which actually came to passthe rejection of the nation by God and the casting of it out of his presence. In his anger he suffered the appointment of another perverse and faithless monarch, who made no attempt at a reformation of religion, and allowed him to run his evil course unchecked, and to embroil himself with his suzerain, and to bring destruction upon his nation. God’s anger, long provoked (2Ki 21:10-15; 2Ki 23:26, 2Ki 23:27; 2Ki 24:3, 2Ki 24:4), lay at the root of the whole series of events, not causing men’s sins, but allowing them to go on until the cup of their iniquities was full, and the time had arrived for vengeance. Until he had east them out from his presence. To be “cast out of God’s presence” is to lose his protecting care, to be separated off from him, to be left defenseless against our enemies. When Israel was once finally cast off, its fate was sealed; there was no further hope for it; the end was come. That Zedekiah rebelled against the King of Babylon; rather, And Zedekiah rebelled, etc. The sentence is a detached one, and would, perhaps, better commence 2Ki 25:1-30. than terminate, as it does, 2Ki 24:1-20. Zedekiah, when he received his investiture at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 24:17), took a solemn oath of allegiance and fidelity (2Ch 36:13; Eze 17:13) to him and to his successors; but almost immediately afterwards he began to intrigue with Egypt, sent a contingent of troops to help Psamatik II. in his wars, and thus sought to pave the way for an Egyptian alliance, on the strength of which he might venture upon a revolt. It was probably owing to the suspicions which these acts aroused that, in the fourth year of his reign, B.C. 594, he had to visit Babylon (Jer 51:59), where, no doubt, he renewed his engagements and assured the Babylonian monarch of his fidelity. But these proceedings were nothing but a blind. On the accession of Hophra to the throne of Egypt in B.C. 591, Zedekiah renewed his application to the Egyptian court, openly sending ambassadors (Eze 17:15), with a request for infantry and cavalry. Thus was his rebellion complete, his “oath despised,” and his “covenant broken” (Eze 17:15, Eze 17:16). The war with Babylon, and the siege of Jerusalem, were the natural consequences.
HOMILETICS
2Ki 24:1-4
Conquering kings and nations instruments in God’s hands to work out his purposes.
The sudden disappearance of Assyria from the scene, and the sudden appearance of Babylon upon it at this point of the history, are very remarkable. Without a word upon the circumstances that had brought it about, the writer of Kings shows us that a great crisis in the world’s history has come and gone; that the mighty state which had dominated Western Asia for centuries is no more, and has been superseded by a new, and hitherto scarce heard of, power. “In his [Jehoiakim’s] days Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came up.” We have thus presented to us, by implication
I. ASSYRIA‘A FALL. For nearly a thousand years Assyria had been “the rod of God’s anger” (Isa 10:5). She had been sent against nation after nation, to execute God’s wrath, with a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets” (Isa 10:6). As Hezekiah confessed in his prayer (2Ki 19:17,2Ki 19:18), their success had been continual: “Of a truth, Lord, the kings of Assyria have destroyed the nations and their lands, and have cast their gods into the fire, etc. But why and whence was this? Because God had used Assyria as his instrument. God had brought it to pass that Assyria should exist “to lay waste fenced cities into ruinous heaps. Therefore their inhabitants were of small power, they were dismayed and confounded; they were as the grass of the field, and as the green herb, as the grass on the house-tops, and as corn blasted before it be grown up” (2Ki 19:25, 2Ki 19:26). But this time was now gone. Assyria had offended God by her pride and self-trust. She had said, “By the strength of my hand I have done this, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: and I have removed the bounds of the people, and have robbed their treasures, and I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man” (Isa 10:13). The axe had “boasted itself against him that hewed therewith; and the saw had magnified itself against him that moved it to and fro” (Isa 10:15). Therefore God thought it time to vindicate his own honor, and Assyria fell. Two Other nations were raised up to break in pieces the proud and haughty conqueror; and, after a short struggle, Assyria sank, to rise no more (Nah 3:19).
II. BABYLON‘S RISE TO GREATNESS. Babylon had in remote days (Gen 10:8-10) been a powerful state, and had even possessed an empire; but for the last seven hundred years or more she had been content to play a very secondary part in Western Asia, and had generally been either an Assyrian feudatory or an integral part of the Assyrian monarchy. But in the counsels of God it had been long decreed that she, and not Assyria, should be God’s instrument for the chastisement of his people (2Ki 20:16-19). Therefore, as the appointed time for Assyria’s fall approached, Babylon was made to increase in power and greatness. A wave of invasion, which passed over the rest of Western Asia, left her untouched. A great monarch was given her in the person of Nabopolassar, who read aright the signs of the times, saw in Media a desirable ally, and, having secured Median co-operation, revolted against the long-established sovereign power. A short, sharp struggle followed, ending in the utter collapse of the great Assyrian empire, and the siege and fall of Nineveh. The two conquering states partitioned between them the Assyrian dominionsMedia taking the countries which lay to the north-west and north, Babylon those towards the south-west and south. Thus, so far as the Jews were concerned, Babylon, between B.C. 625 and B.C. 608, had stepped into Assyria’s place. She had become “the hammer of the whole earth” (Jer 50:23); God’s battle-axe and weapons of war (Jer 51:20), wherewith he brake in pieces nations and kingdoms, man and woman, old and young, captains and rulers (Jer 51:20-23). The prophecy of Isaiah to Hezekiah (2Ki 20:16-19), which seemed so unlikely of fulfillment at the time that it was uttered, found a natural and easy accomplishment, the course of events in the latter part of the seventh century B.C. having transferred to Babylonia, under Divine direction anal arrangement, that grand position and dignity which had previously been Assyria. When she had served God’s purpose, Babylon’s turn came; and she sank as suddenly as she had risen, because she too had been “proud against the Lord” (Jer 1:1-19 :29), and had provoked his indignation.
2Ki 24:1-6
The beginning of the end.
It has been already observed (see the homiletics to 2Ki 16:1-20.) that God’s punishment of a nation, though often long-deferred, when it comes at last comes suddenly, violently, and at once. Nineteen years only interveneda brief space in the life of a nationbetween the first intimation which the Jews received of danger impending from a new enemy, and the entire destruction, by that enemy, of temple, city, and nation. Peril first showed itself in B.C. 605; Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews carried into captivity in B.C. 586. From first to last they were scarcely given a breathing-space. Blow was struck upon blow; calamity followed close upon calamity. “The beginning of the end” is to be dated from Nebuchadnezzar’s first invasionwhen “Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came up” against Jehoiakim, “and Jehoiakim became his servant three years” (2Ki 24:1). When an iron vessel and an earthen one come into contact and collision, it is not difficult to foresee the result. Nebuchadnezzar’s first campaign proved his absolute superiority over all the forces that could be brought against him by the nations of the west. Could the Jews have accepted, honestly and loyally, the position which Jehoiakim professedly took upthat of a faithful vassal and feudatory, who would keep watch over the interests of his suzerain, and aid him to the best of his powera prolonged though inglorious existence would have been possible for the people. But the nation was too proud to submit itself. Neither king nor people had any intention of putting up with the loss of independence or becoming loyal Babylonian subjects, however strongly the duty might be pressed upon them by Jeremiah and the other Jehovistic prophets. A profound antagonism was developed from the first. Nebuchadnezzar probably carried off the captives “of the king’s seed, and of the princes” (Dan 1:3), from Jerusalem by way of hostages. Jehoiakim meditated revolt from the moment of his submission; and within three years threw off the mask, and rebelled openly. Five years of struggle followed. Prompted by Nebuchadnezzar, “the nations set upon him on every side from the provinces, and spread their net over him”, ravaged his territory far and wide, “destroyed” multitudes of the people, and, at last, “took the king in their snare” (Eze 19:8), and “brought him to the King of Babylon” (Eze 19:9). Nebuchadnezzar punished him with death, cast out his body unburied, and took as hostages to Babylon three thousand more of the upper classes of the citizens (Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ Jer 10:6. 3). Distrust and suspicion on the one side, hatred and sense of cruel wrong on the other, must, under these circumstances, have grown and increased; the antagonism, instead of dying away with the lapse of time, must have become accentuated. “The end” already approached, though it “was not yet.” The weaker party could not but go to the wall; and events were evidently hastening to a denouement. With the death of Jehoiakim the first scene of the last act had terminated.
2Ki 24:8-16
Blow upon blow.
A mild and conciliatory policy might, perhaps, have won the Jews to acquiescence in their subjection. But Nebuchadnezzar’s policy was the reverse, and could only tend to their exasperation. With what exact intention or expectation he made Jehoiachin king after executing his father, it is difficult to conjecture. Perhaps he thought he had nothing to fear from a youth of eighteen. Perhaps he trusted to the known mildness of the youth’s disposition (Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 2Ki 10:7. 1). In either case, the experiment failed. Jehoiachin, within a few weeks, gave him cause of offence, or, at any rate, furnished him with some pretext for reopening the quarrel. Then blow was struck upon blow. An army was sent to besiege the city (2Ki 24:10); soon the great king came up against it in person (2Ki 24:11). In vain did Jehoiachin make submission. He was seized and carried off to Babylon, and there shut up in prison. The temple and the royal palace were plundered, and at least ten thousand of the inhabitantsthe noblest, wealthiest, bravest, and most skilledtorn from their homes and led into captivity (2Ki 24:12-16). A remnant only, consisting chiefly of “the poorest of the people of the land” (2Ki 24:14), were left behind. Jerusalem, denuded of more than half her population, can scarcely have known herself. She “sat solitary” (Lam 1:1) and “wept sore in the night” (Lam 1:2), and felt that her total destruction was nigh at hand. So ended the second scene of the last act.
HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS
Verse 1-25:17
Wickedness, retribution, and Divine control, as revealed in Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Judah.
“In his days Nebuchadnezzar,” etc. In glancing through these chapters there are two objects that press on our attention.
1. A national crisis. The peace, the dignity, the wealth, the religious privileges of Judah are converging to a close. Israel has already been carried away by a despot to a foreign land, and now Judah is meeting the same fate. All nations have their crisesthey have their rise, their fall, their dissolution.
2. A terrible despot. The name of Nebuchadnezzar comes for the first time under our attention. Who is he? He is a prominent figure in the histories and the prophecies of the old Scriptures. He was the son and successor of Nabopolassar, who, having revolted from Assyria and helped to destroy Nineveh, brought Babylon at once into pre-eminence. The victories of Nebuchadnezzar were stupendous and many. Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, all bowed to his triumphant arms. He made Babylon, his capital, one of the most wonderful cities of the world. The walls with which he fortified it contained, we are told, no less than five hundred million tons of masonry. He was at once the master and the terror of the age he lived in, which was six hundred years before Christ. There is no character in all history more pregnant with practical suggestions than hisa mighty fiend in human form. We have in these two chapters a view of
(1) the wickedness of man;
(2) the retribution of Heaven;
(3) and the supremacy of God.
Here we have
I. THE WICKEDNESS OF MAN. The wickedness here displayed is marked:
1. By inveteracy. It is here said of Jehoiachin, “He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done.” In 2Ki 25:19 the same is also said of Zedekiah: “He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that Jehoiakim had done.” This has, indeed, been said of many kings of Judah, as of all the kings of Israel. What a hold, then, had wickedness taken on the Jewish people! It had so deeply struck its roots into their very being that neither the mercies nor the judgments of Heaven could uproot it. It was a cancer transmitted from sire to son, poisoning their blood and eating up their nature. Thus, then, from generation to generation the wickedness of the Jewish people seemed to be a disease hereditary, ineradicable, and incurable.
2. By tyranny. “At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. And Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it.” This is seen in the conduct of Nebuchadnezzar. What right had Nebuchadnezzar to leave his own country, invade Judah, plunder it of its wealth, and bear away by violence its population? None whatever. It was tyranny of the worst kind, an outrage on every principle of humanity and justice. Sin is evermore tyrannic. We see it everywhere. On all hands do we see men and women endeavoring to bring others into subjectionmasters their servants, employers their employees, rulers their subjects. Tyranny everywhere is the evidence, the effect, and the instrument of wickedness.
3. By inhumanity. “And the King of Babylon carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon King of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said. And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valor, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, and all that were strong and apt for war, even them the King of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.” He rifled the country of its people and its property, and inflicted untold misery on thousands. Thus wickedness transforms man into a fiend, and turns society into a pandemonium.
4. By profanity. We read here that Nebuchadnezzar carried away all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon had made in the temple thereof. We also read here that “he burnt the house of the Lord . And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the Lord, and the bases, and the brazen sea that was in the house of the Lord, did the Chaldees break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon. And the pots, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the spoons, and all the vessels of brass wherewith they ministered, took they away. The two pillars, one sea, and the bases which Solomon had made for the house of the Lord; the brass of all these vessels was without weight.” Thus this ruthless despot, becoming a scourge in God’s hands, desecrated the most holy things in the city of Jerusalem and in the memory of millions. He reduced the magnificent pile of buildings to ashes, and rifled it of its sacred and priceless treasures. Wickedness is essentially profane. It has no reverence; it crushes every sentiment of sanctity in the soul. O sin, what hast thou done? Thou hast quenched the divinest instincts in human nature, and poisoned the fountain of religious and social sympathies, substituted cruelty for love, tyranny for justice, blind superstition and blasphemous profanity for devotion.
II. THE RETRIBUTION OF HEAVEN.
III. THE SUPREMACY OF GOD.D.T.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
2Ki 24:1-9
The advent of Nebuchadnezzar.
It had been predicted that the final blow on Judah would be delivered, not by the Assyrians, but by the Chaldeans. “The days come, that all that is in thine house shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left” (2Ki 20:17; cf. Mic 4:10). That prediction now hasted to its accomplishment. Babylon had emerged as the successor to Assyria in the undisputed possession of imperial power. Its second king was Nebuchadnezzar, God’s chosen instrument for the chastisement of Judah and surrounding nations (Jer 27:1-22.).
I. JEHOIAKIM‘S SUBMISSION.
1. The defeat of Nechoh. It was through Pharaoh-Nechoh, as previously stated, that Nebuchadnezzar was brought into relations with Judah, which did not end till the final ruin of the latter state. Nechoh had advanced to Carchemish on the Euphrates, when Nebuchadnezzar, finding his hands free, met him in battle, and completely defeated him. All the country between Egypt and the Euphrates, which Nechoh had conquered, thus fell under the power of Babylon (2Ki 24:7). Egypt might intrigue, but was thereafter powerless to help. Wonderful are the combinations of circumstances by which, in providence, God works out his ends.
2. Nebuchadnezzar‘s adduce on Jerusalem. It was now the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 25:1), and, as Nechoh’s vassal, he had probably contributed his contingent to the defeated Egyptian army. Nebuchadnezzar speedily came against him. We learn from other passages (2Ch 36:6, 2Ch 36:7; Dan 1:1, Dan 1:2) that Jerusalem actually was besieged, and Jehoiakim bound in fetters, with the intention of being sent to Babylon. The king saved himself by submission; but the temple was plundered of its sacred vessels, and certain princes, among them Daniel, were taken away captive. This is the beginning of the seventy years’ captivity (Jer 25:11).
3. The three years servitude. For three years Jehoiakim bore the heavy yoke of the King of Babylon, as before he had borne that of Nechoh. During that period his character underwent no improvement. He still proved himself the tyrant and oppressor of his people, was obstinate and headlong in his courses, and sought the life of God’s prophets. He built magnificent palaces by forced labor (Jer 22:13-17). When Jeremiah’s roll was read to him, he cut it up with his penknife, and threw it in the fire (Jer 36:20-23). He slew Urijah the prophet, and would have put Jeremiah also to death if he had dared (Jer 26:12-24). Under his reign heathenism underwent a great revival, and the moral condition of the people rapidly deteriorated. Judah, like Israel of former days, had become a hopelessly corrupt carcass, and nothing remained but to remove it from the face of the earth.
II. JEHOIAKIM‘S REBELLION.
1. Its motives. Three years Jehoiakim served the King of Babylon, then “he turned and rebelled against him” Not much light is thrown on the motives of this rebellion beyond the fact that Nebuchadnezzar was at this time at a distance, and Jehoiakim may have thought he might assert his independence with impunity. Pharaoh-Nechoh was still intriguing to stir up disaffection; plots were always hatching to get the subject-nations to combine against their common oppressor (cf. Jer 27:3 : on this occasion, however, Moab and Ammon were on the side of Nebuchadnezzar, Jer 27:2); and false prophets were never wanting to predict success (cf. Jer 28:1-17.). Jeremiah gave a steady voice to the contrary, but it was unheeded. The proverb was again to be fulfilledwhom the gods wish to destroy, they first madden. Jehoiakim was given up to the delusions of his own vain and foolish notions, and the people cherished extravagant hopes based on their possession of the temple and the Law (Jer 7:4; Jer 8:8). But neither temple nor Law will avail those who refuse to “thoroughly amend” their “ways’ and their “doings” (Jer 7:5).
2. Human instruments of punishment. “And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians,” etc. Nebuchadnezzar could not at the time attend to Jehoiakim in person; but he could lay his commands on neighboring peoples, and these were ordered to keep up a galling and harassing attack on Judah by means of marauding bands. Detachments of his own Chaldeans were assisted by Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, and gave Jehoiakim no peace. God’s heritage is compared by Jeremiah to “a speckled bird, the birds round about are against her” (Jer 12:9). Troubles rise on every side against those who forsake God.
3. God over all. It was the “Lord” who sent these hostile bands “against Judah to destroy it””surely at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight.” In sacred history everything is looked at from the standpoint of Divine providence. From second causes it mounts invariably to the supreme cause. Nebuchadnezzar is God’s “servanthis instrument for the chastisement of the nations” (Jer 27:4-7); and what, from the purely historical point of view, seems a lawless play of forces, is, from the Divine point of view, a scene full of meaning, interest, and purpose. The rejection of Judah is again in these verses connected with the sin of Manasseh, only, however, as before shown, because people and rulers made these sins their own, and would not depart from them. Heathenism was again rampant (cf. Eze 8:1-18.), and Jehoiakim, like Manasseh, was shedding “innocent blood” (Jer 22:17). Scripture knows no fatalism beyond that which springs from the incorrigibleness of a people wedded to their sins. Neither is there any sin which, if sincerely repented, of, God will not pardon, though its temporal effects may still have to be endured. But there is the awful possibility of getting beyond pardon through our own obduracy. Both sides of the truth are seen in Jeremiahon the one hand exhortations to repentance, with assurances of forgiveness. (Jer 18:7-10; Jer 26:1-3;. Jer 35:15); and on the other declarations that the time for pardon was past (Jer 7:15-16, Jer 7:27, Jer 7:28; Jer 11:11-14; Jer 15:1; Jer 18:11, Jer 18:12; Jer 36:16, Jer 36:17, etc.). It was not because the fathers had eaten sour grapes that the children’s teeth were set on edge (Eze 18:2); but the children had walked in the fathers’ ways.
III. JEHOIAKIM‘S SON.
1. Jehoiakim‘s end. Like so many other wicked kings, Jehoiakim came to a miserable end, for there is no reason to doubt that Jeremiah’s prophecy was fulfilled regarding him, “He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jer 22:18, Jer 22:19). The circumstances are unknown.
2. Jehoiachin‘s character. Jehoiachin succeeded to the throne of his father, but, like Jehoahaz, he only held it for three months. Of him, too, the record is borne that he “did evil.” He is, perhaps, the “young lion” of Eze 19:5-9, whom the nations took in their net, and brought to the King of Babylon. There seem to have been some elements of nobleness in his nature, and, after a long captivity, he became the friend and companion of the Babylonian king who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 25:27-30).J.O.
2Ki 24:10-20
The first general captivity.
Some captives had been taken to Babylon on occasion of Nebuchadnezzar’s first advance against Jerusalem (Dan 1:1, Dan 1:2). The full storm of predicted judgment was now, however, to descend. What prophets had so long foretold amidst the scoffing and incredulity of their godless contemporaries was now at length to be accomplished. The final tragedy fails into two parts, of which the first is before us.
I. JEHOIACHIN MAKES SURRENDER.
1. The city besieged. The attacks of the Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, etc; mentioned in 2Ki 24:2, had served an immediate purpose in weakening the strength and exhausting the resources of Judah. The great king, whose fame was already equaling that of a Sargon or a Sennacherib, was now able to send his main army against the city, and soon after appeared upon the scene in person. Again, as in the days of Hezekiah, the city was closely invested; but this time there was no Isaiah to hurl back scorn for scorn, and assure the trembling king of the complete discomfiture of the enemy. Neither was there a king of Hezekiah’s stamp to lay the blasphemous messages of the invader before the Lord, and entreat his interposition (2Ki 19:14-19). It was another kind of message Jeremiah the prophet had to bear to king and people. The day for mercy was past; and in default of a general repentance, which was not to be expected, there remained nothing but “a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation” (Heb 10:27). The day of final reckoning surely comes for every sinner. It had come for Israel a hundred and twenty years before; it was now come for Israel’s sister Judah.
2. Jehoiachin‘s voluntary surrender. Seeing resistance to be hopeless, Jehoiachin did what, on the most favorable interpretation of his conduct, was a noble thing. The city could not hold out; but if he and the other members of the royal house went and made voluntary surrender of themselves to Nebuchadnezzar, the worst horrors might be spared. This, indeed, was what Jeremiah always counseled. Jehoiachin accordingly went forth, with Nehushta his mother, and his servants, princes, and officers, and delivered themselves up to the Babylonian king. He might feel, with the lepers of Samaria, “If they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die” (2Ki 7:4). Or he may have been actuated by the nobler impulse to save the people, and may have thought, “It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (Joh 11:50). His submission did avert the worst from the nation. His own life was spared, though he was led away a prisoner; the city was not sacked and burned, as afterwards; and no massacre of the inhabitants took place. A tender tone pervades Jeremiah’s references to this unfortunate king (Jer 22:24-30). Ezekiel likens him to “the highest branch of the cedar,” which the “great eagle, with great wings, long-winged, full of feathers, which had divers colors,” crops off (Eze 17:3, Eze 17:4); and again (according to some) to “a young lion,” who had “learned to catch the prey, and devoured men,” but “the nations set against him on every side,” and “he was taken in their pit” and put in chains, and brought to the King of Babylon (Eze 19:5-9). We may share with Jeremiah in his sympathy for the unhappy young king in his exile (Jer 22:28). Had his circumstances been more favorable, better things might have been hoped of him. The nobility of self-sacrifice redeems a character from many faults.
II. THE CITY DESPOILED. If Jehoiachin’s surrender saved the people from slaughter, it could not save the city from plunder, nor its inhabitants from captivity. Nebuchadnezzar was no kid-gloved conqueror; where his mailed hand fell, he let it be felt. This city had rebelled against him, and he would effectually cripple its power to rebel again by impoverishing, degrading, and weakening it to the utmost. Nebuchadnezzar was intent only on his own ends, yet unconsciously he was carrying out to the letter the predictions which God’s prophets had been dinning into the people’s ears with so little result during all the years of their backsliding. The city was despoiled:
1. Of its wealth and sacred vessels. “He carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon had made,” etc. Jehoiakim had saved his treasures at the expense of exactions from the people, and his “covetousness” had doubtless filled them still more (Jer 22:17). These ill-gotten gains were now carried away, and with them such of the temple vessels as were made of, or plated with, gold, the “cutting to pieces” being probably confined to the latter, with such large articles as the golden candlestick, etc. Of the smaller articles some few were spared (2Ki 25:15), and the rest were preserved in Babylon, and restored on the return (Ezr 1:7-11). Judgment thus again began at the house of God. As, with the wealth of the city, the wealth-producers were also taken (verse 14), it is easy to see to what poverty it was reduced.
2. Of its royal family and nobles. “And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives,” etc. The land was thus deflowered of its king and aristocracy. The nobles, indeed, had proved no source of strength to the nation, but had set an example of luxury, oppression, corruption, and idolatry. Still, they were the representatives of its old hereditary families; they had high social position and great influence; and they ought to have been, if they were not, patrons and examples of everything good and great. Those who have rank, fortune, and leisure may be of the highest service to a state, if only they devote their powers to its true welfare. They contribute elements of refinement, culture, and wealth to it, which cannot be lost without impoverishment. If, however, they abuse their opportunities, and grow luxurious, idle, and wicked, they have generally to suffer severely in the end.
3. Of its artisans and warriors. “And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war,” etc. Besides removing from the city the wealth that enriched it, and the nobles who adorned it, Nebuchadnezzar took away the skilful hands that did its work, and the strong arms that fought for it. He left none “save the poorest sort of the people of the land.” This was to drain the city dry of every element of its prosperity. The middle classes of a nationits wealth-producers and skilled laborerseven more than its aristocracyare the source of its strength. By them is created the capital of the country; through them that capital undergoes constant renewal and increase; they supply the wants of every other class; without them the nobles would be helpless, and on them “the poorest sort of people”too often the unfortunate, the shiftless, the inefficient classesdepend for casual employment and support. Nebuchadnezzar looked well to his own interests when he deported these classes, and not the poor, the less able, leas thrifty, to Babylon. But their departure was ruinous to Jerusalem, and this also Nebuchadnezzar intended. It was, indeed, an irretrievable, crushing blow, which had fallen on the nation, nonetheless ruinous and terrible that it had been so long predicted, and was so richly deserved. Piety tends to the enrichment and strengthening of a nation, as of an individual, even temporally; but a course of ungodliness ends in the loss of temporal and spiritual possessions together.
III. ZEDEKIAH MADE KING.
1. Accession of Zedekiah. Jehoiachin was a man of spirited character, and Nebuchadnezzar seems to have thought that he would be better served by putting a weaker man upon the throne. The person chosen was an uncle of the young king’s, a brother of Jehoiakim, whose name, Mattaniah, Nebuchadnezzar changed to Zedekiah”the Righteousness of Jehovah.” There was little honor now in being King of Judah; but at least the city and temple still stood; the priesthood had not been carried away; there were a few nobles left to grace the court; and by degrees new artisans and soldiers might have been got in, and the state again Built up. It was the last chance, and was given only to show clearly how hopeless the moral condition of the people was. For if anything could have sobered them, and convinced. them of the truth of the words of the prophets, it was such a catastrophe as had descended upon them. Deaf to all warnings, however, whether of mercy or judgment, the people only went on from bad to worse.
2. His weak character. The outstanding feature in Zedekiah’s character was weaknesslack of courage and strength of will He was not without good impulses. He showed a friendly disposition to Jeremiah; on various occasions he sought his advice and intercession (Jer 21:1, Jer 21:2; Jer 37:3; Jer 38:14-17); at Jeremiah’s instigation he made a covenant with the people of Jerusalem, pledging them to give liberty to their bondmen (Jer 34:8, Jer 34:11), and once at least he refrained from entering into a proposed league against Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 27:3). But his timid, faithless, unstable nature reveals itself at every turn. He was like Herod, who did many things at the bidding of John the Baptist, and heard him gladly, yet at last beheaded him to please a wicked woman (Mar 6:20). Zedekiah knew what was fight, but did not do it (Jer 37:2); he weakly allowed himself to be overruled by his nobleswhen they broke through his covenant he had no power to resist (Jer 34:11); when they urged him to put Jeremiah to death, he consented, saying, “Behold, he is in your hand: for the king is not he that can do anything against you” (Jer 38:4, Jer 38:5); then, when Ebed-Melech pleaded for the prophet, he gave orders for his deliverance (verse 10); he disobeyed Jeremiah in throwing off his allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar, and in seeking an alliance with Egypt; and when Nebuchadnezzar again came up against him, he sought Jeremiah’s counsel, but did not take it when it was given (Jer 38:14-28), etc. Meanwhile idolatry had firmly established itself in the holy city, and within the very precincts of the temple (Eze 8:1-18.). Fitly, therefore, is the reign of this last king described, like the rest, as “evil.” His weakness and vacillation, his unfaithfulness to his own best convictions, his sinful yielding to others in what he knew to be wrong, were his ruin. He was in a hard and difficult position, and he had no strength of mind to cope with it.
3. His rebellion. At length, yielding to the solicitations of his nobles, and hopeful of help from Egypt (Eze 17:15), he broke his oath of allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar, an act which Ezekiel strongly condemns (Eze 17:16-19). The cup was full, and the Lord left him thus far to himself, that the nation might be destroyed. Men who will not follow light, lose light. A blindness, as from heaven, falls upon them. They are left to the bent of their own hearts, and their own counsel is their ruin. Sin is the supreme folly, as righteousness is the supreme wisdom.J.O.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
B.The Reign of Josiah; the Discovery of the Boo k of the Law, and Restoration of the Mosaic Ritual
2Ki 22:1 to 2Ki 23:30 (2 Chronicles 34, 35)
1Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign [became king], and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And his mothers name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath. 2And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.
3And it came to pass in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, that the king sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the house of the Lord, saying, 4Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the silver which is [has been] brought into the house of the Lord, which the keepers of the door have gathered of the people: 5And let them deliver it [and may deliver it]1 into the hand of the doers of the work [commissioners], that have the oversight of the house2 of the Lord: and let them give it to the doers of the work, which is [who are] in the house of the Lord, to repair the breaches of the house, 6Unto carpenters, and builders, and masons, and to buy timber and hewn 7stone to repair the house. Howbeit, there was [But let] no reckoning [be] made with them of the money that was [is] delivered into their hand, because [for] they dealt [deal] faithfully.
8And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 9And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered [emptied out] the money that was found [stored]3 in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work [the commissioners], that have the oversight of the house of the Lord. 10And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. 11And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. 12And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the 13scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the kings, saying, Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me [on my behalf] and for [on behalf of] the people, and for [on behalf of] all Judah, concerning [on account of] the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us [prescribed for us].4
14So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college 15[lower city];) and they communed with her. And she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me, 16Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will [am about to] bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read: 17Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be [is] kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched. 18But to the king of Judah which sent you to inquire of the Lord, thus shall ye say to him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, As touching the words which thou hast heard; 19Because thine heart was tender, and thou hast humbled [humbledst] thyself before the Lord, when thou heardest what I spake [had spoken] against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard thee [omit thee] saith the Lord. 20Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place. And they brought the king word again.
2Ki 23:1 And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem. 2And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was [had been] found in the house of the Lord. 3And the king stood by a pillar [or on a platform], and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies [ordinances] and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform [maintain] the words [terms] of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to [joined in]5 the covenant.
4And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the grove [Astarte], and for all the host of heaven: and he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried6 the ashes of them unto Beth-el. 5And he put down [caused to desist] the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense7 in the high places in [of] the cities of Judah, and in the places [omit in the places] round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets [constellations of the Zodiac], and to all the host of heaven. 6And he brought out the grove [Astarte-image] from the house of the Lord, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast. the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people [common people]. 7And he brake down the houses of the sodomites [male-prostitutes], that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove [tent-like shrines for Astarte]. 8And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba, and brake down the high places of the gates [both] that were [which was] in the entering in of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, [and that] which were [was] on a mans left hand at the gate of the city. 9Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to [were not allowed to sacrifice upon]8 the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat of the [omit of the] unleavened bread among their brethren. 10And he defiled Topheth, which is the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech. 11And he took away9 the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entering in of the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the suburbs [colonnade of the temple], and burned the chariots of the sun with fire. 12And the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord, did the king beat down [demolish], and brake [tear] them [omit them] down from thence, and [he] cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron. 13And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth [or Astarte] the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile. 14And he brake in pieces the images, and cut down the groves [Astarte-statues], and filled their places with the bones of men.
15Moreover the altar that was at Beth-el, and [omit and] the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, both that altar and the high place he brake down, and burned the high place, and stamped it small to powder, and burned the grove [statue of Astarte]. 16And as Josiah turned himself, he spied the sepulchres that were there in the mount, and sent, and took the bones out of the sepulchres, and burned them upon the altar, and polluted it, according to the word of the Lord which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these words. 17Then he said. What title [grave-stone] is that that I see? And the men of the city told him, It is the sepulchre of the man of God, which came from Judah, and proclaimed [foretold] these things that thou hast done against the altar of Beth-el. 18And he said, Let him alone; let no man move his bones. So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet that came out of Samaria. 19And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke the Lord to anger, Josiah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he had done in Beth-el. 20And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there [,] upon the altars, and burned mens bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem.
21And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the Lord your God, as it is written in the [this] book of this [the] covenant. 22Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah; 23But in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, wherein [omit, and wherein] this passover was holden to the Lord in Jerusalem.
24Moreover the workers with familiar spirits [necromancers], and the wizards, and the [household] images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform [establish]10 the words of the law, which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord. 25And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.
26Notwithstanding, the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal. 27And the Lord said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there. 28Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah?
29In his days Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him. 30And his servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own sepulchre. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his fathers stead.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
The parallel account in the book of Chronicles coincides perfectly with the above in all its details. In some passages, indeed, it is identically the same (2Ki 22:8-20; 2Ki 23:1-3 compared with 2Ch 34:19-32); but the Chronicler cannot have made use of the book of Kings as his authority, for he gives a number of chronological data, and also certain proper names (2Ch 34:3; 2Ch 34:8; 2Ch 34:12; 2Ch 35:8-9), which are wanting in the book of Kings, and which cannot possibly have been invented at a later time. The case is the same with this passage as with 2Ki 11:1-20. Both accounts are taken from one and the same original source, viz., the work which both refer to at the close of the passage (2Ki 23:28; 2Ch 35:27). Their principal points of difference are two; viz., that each one describes in great detail certain ones of the facts noticed, which in their turn are passed over more summarily by the other, and that the facts are not narrated by both in the same chronological order.
In the book of Kings the extirpation of idolatry and of illegitimate Jehovah-worship is described with care and detail, so that the passage here which deals with this point (2Ch 23:4-20) is, as regards its external form, longer than the corresponding one in Chronicles; moreover, as regards its contents, it is by far the most important passage in the entire narrative, all that goes before it (2Ch 22:3-12 and 2Ch 23:1-3) serving only as an historical introduction, and all which follows (2 chron23:2124) only as the conclusion and sequel to it. In Chronicles, on the other hand, the description of the passover festival is the object of greatest interest, as is evident, in the first place, from the fulness with which it is given (2Ch 35:1-19), while the extirpation of the false worship is very briefly recorded. [This is in accord with what we observe in general in regard to the characteristics of the two books. The book of Kings attaches the interest to the religious and theocratic features of the history, while the book of Chronicles is especially interested in its ecclesiastical details. In Kings we have the history studied from the standpoint of the prophets; in Chronicles, from that of the levitical priesthood. In Kings we find those details especially prominent which refer to ethical, religious, and monotheistic truth; in Chronicles the fortunes of the priesthood, and the ritualistic and hierarchical developments, are all fastened upon and described in detail.W. G. S.] Evidently these fundamental charactisterics of the two authors present themselves in their accounts of this reign. The older author gives us an account from his theocratic and pragmatic standpoint. He desires to show that king Josiah stands alone in the history of the Jewish kings, in that he carried out in practice and execution the fundamental law of the theocracy with a zeal and severity equalled by none of his predecessors or successors (2Ki 23:24-25. The statement is wanting in Chronicles.) The latter author, on the contrary, adopts the levitical and priestly standpoint. He desires to show that the passover had not been so solemnly or correctly celebrated since the time of Samuel as it was under Josiah. For this reason we must regard the account in Kings as more important, and use that in Chronicles merely as a valuable complement to it.As for the chronological succession of the events, the author of the book of Kings puts the eighteenth year of Josiahs reign at the head of the narrative. He says that the repair of the temple, during which the Book of the Law was found, took place in this year; that the reading of this book agitated the king so much that he sought higher guidance in regard to it; that he, after this guidance had been given him through the prophetess Huldah, collected the people and bound them to observe the covenant prescribed in this book; that he then proceeded to extirpate all false worship, and abolish idolatry, first in Jerusalem and Judah, and then in Samaria, and when he had accomplished this, that he ordained an observance of the passover according to the strict prescriptions of the book. It must be admitted that this is a sequence of events in which each one follows naturally and necessarily from the preceding. The Chronicler, on the other hand, begins his account with these words: In the eighth year of his [Josiahs] reign, while he was a boy [], he commenced to seek the God of his father David, and in his twelfth year he commenced to purify Judah and Jerusalem from the high-places, and the Astarte-images, and the idols of stone and the molten images, and they tore down before him the altars of the Baalim, &c. After the same had been done in the land of Israel he returned to Jerusalem (2Ch 34:3-7). After this followed, still in the eighteenth year, the repair of the temple, during which the Book of the Law was found. This occasioned the oracle of the prophetess and the oath of fidelity to the covenant from the assembled people. Immediately after the description of the last event follows the remark: And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all who were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God (2Ch 34:33). Then, in chap. 35, follows the description of the passover. The chronicler, therefore, puts the extirpation of idolatry before the repair of the temple and the discovery of the Book of the Law, and before the oath of fidelity to the covenant. This cannot, however, be the correct chronological sequence of the events, for the incentive which moved Josiah to collect the people and exact an oath of fidelity to the covenant from them was the threats of the newly discovered Law-book. Such an oath would have been useless and destitute of significance if every illegitimate cultus had already been abolished. The chronicler seems to have perceived this himself, for he repeats, in brief and condensed form, after the narrative of the discovery of the book, and after the public oath of fidelity, the statement of the reformation in the cultus which he had already given in 2Ch 22:4-7. On the other hand, his definite chronological statements in 2Ch 22:3 : In the eighth and in the twelfth years of Josiah, statements which are wanting in the book of Kings, cannot be pure inventions of his own, especially if it is true that the sixteenth year of life, that is, in this case, the eighth year of the reign, was the year in which, according to numerous indications, the kings sons became of age (Ewald). It is also unlikely that the king, who had been remarkable for his piety from his youth up, should have suddenly undertaken such a startling reformation in the eighteenth year of his reign. The repair of the temple previous to the discovery of the book shows that he was disposed to foster the Jehovah-worship. What he did in his eighth and twelfth years may have been a commencement and preparation for what he carried out in his eighteenth year with thoroughness and severity, being impelled by the threats contained in the book which had been discovered. This eighteenth year was, therefore, the real year of the reformation, the year in which there was a complete change in the religious worship of the nation, and in which Josiah accomplished the work by virtue of which he stands alone in the history of the kingdom. This is the reason why the author of the book of Kings puts this date at the head of his narrative, omitting any mention of the eighth and twelfth years, and also repeats it at the close (2Ki 23:23). The chronicler, on the contrary, who only mentions the abolition of the illegal and illegitimate worship in the briefest manner, desired to add to his statement that Josiah began in his twelfth year to purify Judah and Jerusalem the further information how he carried this out, although somewhat later, in the land of Israel also. This uncertainty in the arrangement of the historical material is due to the imperfectness of the art of the historian, and it is not right to ascribe to the account in general, as De Wette does, distortion of the sense, confusedness, and obscurity. Neither is it by any means correct to assert, as Keil and Movers do, that the account of the chronicler is, on the whole, more correct, chronologically, for it is not possible that the abolition of idolatry, even in Judah, should have taken place before the discovery of the Law-book, as 2Ch 34:6-7 seems to assert. The assertion that not all the events mentioned in this account (2Ki 22:3 to 2Ki 23:23) could have taken place in the one eighteenth year, especially seeing that the passover feast belonged in the commencement and not at the end of the year (Keil), is not founded on conclusive arguments, for the eighteenth year is a year of the reign, not a calendar year, and its end may very well have fallen at the commencement of the calendar year; moreover, we do not see why the work of destruction might not have been accomplished in one year, seeing that it met with no opposition. Thenius even thinks that it was accomplished in a period of four months. [Nevertheless, as Keil says (Comm. s. 352): If we take in review the separate events and incidents which are narrated in this passage, the repair of the temple, the discovery of the Law-book, the reading of it to the king, the inquiry of the prophetess and her oracle, the reading of the book to the people in the temple with the renewal of the covenant, the abolition of idolatry not only in Judah, but also in Bethel and the other cities of Samaria, and, finally, the passover festival, it is hardly necessary to remark that all this cannot have taken place in the one eighteenth year of his reign.] It is not necessary to suppose, as Bertheau does, that both narratives are chronologically inaccurate, inasmuch as events are included in the narrative [2Ch 23:4-20] which belong to the time before the eighteenth year. It is certain that Josiah began to reform before his eighteenth year, but the events mentioned in 2Ch 34:4-7 belong not to this time, but to the eighteenth year, and there is no reason to transfer to the time before this year events which belong to this year itself. [The authors opinion is, therefore, that Josiahs undertaking to repair the temple bears witness to his disposition to reform the cultus, and that this, in connection with the assertion of the chronicler that he made certain efforts to this end in his twelfth year, forces us to the conviction that the reformation commenced before the eighteenth year of the reign, but that those efforts in this direction which he is said by the chronicler to have made before his eighteenth year really belong to that year, including all the reformatory measures of which the Scripture has preserved a record.W. G. S.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
2Ki 22:1. Josiah was eight years old, &c. Amon was twenty-four years old when he died (2Ki 21:19). He must have begotten Josiah when he was only sixteen years old. This is not astonishing in view of the early marriages which are common in the Orient (see notes on 2Ki 16:2). Whether the young king was under a regency, or had an elderly man as tutor and governor, as Joash did (2Ki 12:3), is not stated. We know nothing of Boscath, the birth-place of his mother, except that it was in the plain of Judah (Jos 15:39). 2Ki 22:2 characterizes in general the reign of Josiah, and forms, as it were, the title of the entire following passage. The expression: Turned not aside to the right hand or to the left (see Deu 5:32; Deu 17:11; Deu 17:20; Deu 28:14) is only used of this king in this book.On the chronological date: in the eighteenth year, see Preliminary Remarks. The addition in the Sept.: , is not found anywhere else, and does not deserve any attention. In Chronicles (2Ch 34:8) two other persons are mentioned whom the king sent with Shaphan, Maaseiah, the governor, and Joah, the recorder. Shaphan alone is mentioned here, as he was the one who had charge of the money. The others were merely companions. On , see notes on 1Ki 4:3.
2Ki 22:4. Go up to Hilkiah, the high-priest, &c. Since the time of Joash (2Ki 12:5), a period of 250 years, the temple had not been repaired. It had, therefore, become very much dilapidated. Josiah went to work according to the precedent established by Joash. The fact that we find here almost the same account as in 2Ki 12:11 sq. is due to the similarity of the two incidents, and is perfectly natural, so that it cannot be regarded as a proof that the account is untrue (Sthelin, Krit. Untersuch. s. 156) (Thenius). The account is here somewhat abbreviated and presupposes some things which are there distinctly stated. The author only mentions the temple-repairs because they brought the Law-book to light. The high-priest Hilkiah is mentioned in the list of the high-priests, and is designated as the son of Shallum (1Ch 6:13). Nothing further is known in regard to him. Many have supposed that he was the father of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 1:1), (Eichhorn, Von Bohlen, and Menzel), but this is certainly an error, as Hitzig in the prolegomena to his Comm. on Jeremiah has shown. is hifil from , and means, to make perfect (see Frst s. v.) not, to pay (Gesen.). [This money was the result of offerings which came in slowly and steadily. The force of is to take up the money which had been paid in up to this time, make an account and settlement, and so finish up, make complete, the sum on hand. The E. V. sum is, therefore, quite accurate.W. G. S.] Hilkiahs duty in the circumstances was that which is described more fully in 2Ki 12:10 sq. The conjecture , i. e., and seal up (Thenius) is entirely unnecessary. The translation of the Sept., , is incorrect. So is also that of the Vulg.: confletur pecunia. According to 2Ch 34:9 the money was paid in by Manasseh and Ephraim, and all the remnant of Israel, as well as by all Judah and Benjamin, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The names of the commissioners or inspectors are also given there (2Ki 22:12), but they have no further interest or importance.
2Ki 22:8. I have found the book of the Law in the house of the Lord. The emphasis lies here, as the position of the words [Hebr. text] shows, on , words which can only be translated the book of the Law, according to the familiar rule: If a compound notion, expressed by a governing noun and a dependent genitive, has to have the article, this is regularly placed before the genitive, but it then affects the entire compound (Gesenius, Gramm. 109, 1 [19th Ed. 111, 1]; Ewald, Lehrb. 290, a, 1). is here emphatic, and does not mean, to fall in with something which is known to be somewhere at hand, but to discover something which is concealed (cf. Levit. 5:22 and 23 [English text Lev 6:3-4], where we find with it , i.e., something lost). [ means to find in three different senses: (a) to find a thing of whose existence one has knowledge, and which one therefore seeks for; (b) to find, by accident, a thing whose existence was known, but which had for some time been lost sight of; (c) to find a new thing which one never had seen or heard of before. The author thinks that the second meaning is the one which it has here. Ewald, quoted immediately below, takes it in the third sense.W. G. S.] We see in the course of the narrative that this book is always referred to as that which had been found [i.e., rescued from concealment] (2Ki 22:13; 2Ki 23:2; 2Ki 23:24; 2 Chron. 34:14; 21:30). It is, therefore, arbitrary and violent of Ewald, who established the above rule, to give to these words, on account of other considerations, the indefinite sense: Hilkiah also (!) spoke with Shaphan about a (!) book of the law which he said he had found in the temple, and to assert in the note: There is no possible reference here to an old already known, and now only rediscovered, book of the Law. The appeal to (2Ki 22:10) has no force, for there is to be supplied from 2Ki 22:8, for Hilkiah had already definitely described it as the book of the Law, and Shaphan brought it to the king as such. [We have no right to interpolate the in 2Ki 22:10. The fact is rather as follows: In 2Ki 22:8 Hilkiah calls it the book of the Law, because he is convinced that it is so; in 2Ki 22:10 Shaphan presents it to the king as a book, in regard to whose character he does not himself express any opinion, nor desire to raise any prejudice. It is simply an interesting book deserving the kings attention and examination. Such is the true meaning of the text as it stands with in Hilkiahs description, but omitted in Shaphans. We obliterate this feature of the narrative if we supply in 2Ki 22:10.W. G. S.] Thenius justly says, in contradiction of Ewald: The expression shows distinctly that it refers to a book which was known in earlier times, not to one which had now for the first time come to light, and Bunsen says: It certainly refers to a work which had been previously known. Nothing but the critics preconceived notion could lead him to contradict this. Now there can be no doubt as to what is meant by the expression , for it is the well-known technical expression for the books of Moses as a whole. In the parallel passage in Chronicles we read (2Ch 34:14): Hilkiah, the priest, found , and according to Deu 31:24-26, Moses, after he had finished writing out the whole law (), said to the levites: Take , and lay it by the side of the ark of the covenant. In 2Ki 23:2-3; 2Ki 23:21; 2Ch 34:30-31, we find instead , but this expression also designates the books of Moses as a whole. It is the same as , 2Ki 23:25. This expression is never used of a portion, or of a single one, of the books of Moses, so that it proves that the book which was found could not be, as has often been supposed, the book of Deuteronomy. That book was certainly contained in it, for it was the threats contained in that book (Deuteronomy 28) which made such a deep impression on the king (2Ki 22:11), and which were affirmed by the prophetess (2Ki 22:16). It, however, presupposes the other books, and never formed a separate book by itself.
Josiah certainly could not renew the covenant on the basis of one book only, but only on the basis of the whole book of the law (2Ki 23:1-3). The opinion that this book was Deuteronomy alone has, therefore, been almost universally abandoned, and Bertheau justly observes of this opinion (Zur Gesch. Isr. s. 375): It lacks all foundation, and only rests upon favorite assumptions, which cannot stand before a critical science which examines more carefully. It is now commonly assumed hat the law-book was a document which formed he basis of Deuteronomy at the final redaction Hitzig on Jerem. xi. s. 90), or that it was a collection of the commands and ordinances of Moses which has been since incorporated in the Pentateuch, especially in Deuteronomy (Thenius on the place), or that it was a collection of the laws of Moses; in fact, that formally arranged collection of them which is contained in the three middle books of the Pentateuch (Bertheau on 2Ch 34:14). But there is not the slightest hint of my such collection as existing before, or by the side of, the Pentateuch; much less is there any lint that any such collection was designated as the book of the Law, or the book of the Covenant. It is a pure hypothesis in which refuge has been sought, because, on the one hand, it was impossible to understand by the newly discovered book any one of the books of the Pentateuch; while, on the other hand, it was believed that the composition of the Pentateuch must be ascribed to a later date. This is not the place for an investigation into the origin of the Pentateuch. We simply hold firmly to this, on the authority of the text before us, that the newly discovered book was the entire Pentateuch. De Wette, even, declares (Einleit. 162, a): The discovery of he book of the law in the temple in the reign of Josiah is the first (?) certain hint which we find of the existence of the Pentateuch as we have it to-day.
[In the above discussion there are two points involved: (a) the general question of the date of the origin of Deuteronomy, and (b) the especial evidence of the text before us on that question. I dismiss the former point with the following remarks. (a) It is a question of great scope, involving the examination of many texts (very few of which are mentioned above), and calling for a comprehensive treatment. Such an undertaking is out of place and impossible here. (b) This question requires freedom, and scholarly independence from dogmatic prepossessions, for its discussion. It requires also thorough and wide knowledge of a variety of subjects. It cannot be settled by any arbitary and dogmatic assertions. (c) The reasons which are adduced for believing in the comparatively late origin of the book of Deuteronomy, if not convincing, are at least such as to demand the candid consideration of honest scholars. (For the summary of the arguments on either side see the Introductory Essays in the Commentary on Genesis, and the articles Pentateuch and Deuteronomy, in Smiths Dictionary of the Bible.)
The other question, as to the bearing of this verse on the question of the date of the origin of Deuteronomy, is in place here, but, in fact, the text bears little or no evidence on that point. The reasons for thinking that Deuteronomy was not written by Moses, but at some time long after his death, are critical and independent of the verse before us. When this opinion had gained ground the question arose, when was it written? then attention was turned to this passage, and it was suspected that this was the time of its publication, if not of its composition. Then the text was tortured to try to make it bear evidence either to confirm or overthrow this suspicion. There is evidence to this point drawn from other sources, but the text before us yields none to either side.
(a) In the first place, the Book of the Law is a name which may have referred at one time to the Decalogue, at another time to a collection of laws, at another time to a still later revision, and so on until it was applied finally to the Pentateuch in its present form, and so came down to us with that meaning. This is what the critical school affirm to have been the fact, and so far as the name, The Book of the Law goes, it is not inconsistent with that assertion. The Revised Statutes of a State, at any given time, means the volume of law as fixed, up to that time. Ten years later, the same title refers, perhaps, to a very different set of laws. The illustration answers rudely for the development which is supposed to have taken place from the original writings of Moses to the historical, political, religious, and ritual work which now bears his name. We have some indications of the extent of what is called the Law of Moses, in the time which seems to have been required for reading it, but they are vague and uncertain. In Jos 8:32, however, we read that Joshua wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel. Probably no one will think that, in this case, it refers to the Pentateuch. Therefore, in the verse before us, the Book of the Law refers to whatever was so considered, or passed as such at this period, but what that was is exactly the point in dispute.
(b) The word , as was said above, is used for different kinds of finding. It does not, therefore, give us any clue as to whether the thing found was an old thing, whose location had not, for some time, been known, or a thing which had not previously been known to be in existence at all. However, no one believes that nothing had previously existed, or been known to exist, which passed under the name of the Law of the Lord. The question in dispute is, whether the thing now so designated was identical with what had previously been so called, or was a revision and extension of the same, containing especially, as a recent addition, the book of Deuteronomy. On that question the word casts no light.
(c) Hilkiah uses the definite article. Let us endeavor to realize the state of things, and see what inference flows from this fact. We know that, at this time, certain religious doctrines were known and believed, and certain rites of worship were practised in Judah by those who maintained the worship of Jehovah. We also know (so much, at least, no one disputes) that Moses had given certain revelations of religious truth, and certain religious ordinances to the Israelites, in the name of Jehovah, and had written them down. The only dispute on these points can be as to the degree of knowledge, faith, and worship which existed in Judah, and as to the amount of revelation and law which Moses gave and wrote. It follows that the writings of Moses, either in their original, or in a modified and extended form, served as the authority for the doctrine and worship which still remained in Judah, or else, that this written law had passed from human knowledge, lost in the flood of heathenism which had poured over the nation during the last century, in which case the doctrine and worship which remained would be based on a tradition of the ancient writings as such; and the name The Law would refer only to the substance of them, so far as it was remembered. Hilkiahs announcement throws light on this alternative. If he had said: I have found a book of the Law,it would have implied that he had found a copy of a generally well known volume. But he says: I have found the Book of the Law. He refers to it as something known or heard of before, yet the tone of the announcement and the effect of the discovery show that no other copies of this book could have been known to be in existence, or else that this copy was different from all others. If the latter were the case, the suspicion would be forced upon us, by the reference to threats in the book, that what marked this copy, as distinguished from all others, was just the book of Deuteronomy. Many scholars so regard the incident. However, it is strange that, if other copies existed, while this copy contained matter which was missing from them, no hint of this should be found in the context. How was it that no one produced a copy of the Law, or challenged the new copy as a forgery? Or, if it passed at once as genuine, because it was not in the spirit of the age to be critical about literary authorship, and if it was well known, from easy comparison with existing copies, that this copy gave new and valuable knowledge of the Law, why do we find no hint of this gain? The argument from silence is never conclusive, but in this case it is very strong. It seems rather that Hilkiah refers, by his words, to a book which was unique, so far as his, or the general public knowledge went, and that he meant to announce the discovery of the Book which contained that Law which was known to them by tradition, which formed the basis of their faith and worship, of whose existence, at a former time, in a written codex, they had also heard, but of which they possessed no written copy.
The only true inference from this text is, therefore, this, that during the time of apostasy, the Scriptures had been lost to public knowledge, and the Law existed only as a tradition and memory. This leaves us face to face with the question: Of what did this book of the Law consist,of our Pentateuch, or of some imperfect form of what we now call the Pentateuch? We must look for the answer to that question elsewhere. We shall not find it in this verse.W. G. S.]
As for the particular copy of the book which was found, the Rabbis and many of the old expositors, Grotius, Piscator, Hess, and others inferred from the words 2Ch 34:14 : The book of the law of Jehovah , that it was the original manuscript from the hand of Moses, and Calmet was of the opinion that this supposition could alone account for the great effect which the discovery produced. In Num 15:23 we find the same expression, but there it cannot possibly be understood literally of the hand of Moses. It is used in the sense in which we often find elsewhere (1Ki 12:15; Jer 37:2), simply to denote the medium through which Clericus statement is correct: Satis est, exemplar quoddam Legis antiquum fuisse, idque authenticum. As it was found in the house of Jehovah, it was most probably the temple-copy, i.e., the official one which, as the documentary testimony to the covenant, was deposited in the temple, according to Deu 31:12; Deu 31:26, and was used for public reading from time to time before the people. Perhaps this copy was distinguished by its external appearance, size, material, beauty of the writing, &., from the ordinary private copies. [The passage in Deuteronomy must then be interpreted as a general injunction always to keep a copy in the tabernacle or temple, an interpretation which a glance will show to be incorrect, and it is assumed that there were private copies in existence. If private copies of the Book of the Law were common, or if a single one was known to be in existence, then we cannot understand why the discovery produced such a sensation, unless indeed we suppose that the newly discovered copy contained something which the other copies did not. In that case the reference to the threats contained in the book, as one of its prominent characteristics, would awaken the gravest suspicion that what it contained over and above the other copies was just the book of Deuteronomy. There is no reason to believe that private copies existed, and the definite article bears witness to the contrary, as above stated.W. G. S.] It is nowhere stated when and how this official copy was thrown aside and lost sight of. According to the tradition of the rabbis, this took place under Ahaz, who, they say, caused all the copies to be burned, but Kimchi justly objected that the reformation under Hezekiah presupposed the existence of the Law-book, and acquaintance with it. The supposition is therefore naturally suggested that under the fanatical idolater Manasseh, who sought to destroy all Jehovah-worship, and who reigned for fifty-five years, some faithful servant of Jehovah, perhaps the high-priest himself, took care to conceal and preserve the sacred Scriptures, and that the book only came to light again at the repairing of the temple under Josiah, after sixty or seventy years of concealment. During this period the priests followed an imperfect tradition in their execution of the public worship of Jehovah, instead of being guided by the legal prescriptions (Von Gerlach), and it may be that the active practice of religious observances (which we must take for granted as existing in a well-ordered State) saved them from feeling the necessity for written rules (Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 610). The discovery of the authentic Law-book was all the more important on this account, for by means of it the pure and correct worship of Jehovah could now be re-established. The idle question, where the book was found? whether under the roof, or under a heap of stones, or in one of the treasure chambers, may be left to the rabbis to contend over.
2Ki 22:11. When the king had heard the words of the book of the law, &c. Shaphan did not read to the king the whole book, but he read therein (2Ch 34:18 : ). Judging from the impression which the words made upon the king (rending ones clothes is a sign of the deepest anxiety and terror; see 2Ki 6:30; 2Ki 19:1), those passages seem to have been read in which the transgressors of the law are threatened with the hardest punishments; such, for instance, as Deuteronomy 28. Perhaps the last part of the book-roll was unrolled first (Richter).The king now sends a deputation of his highest officers, as Hezekiah had done in similar uncertainty, to inquire of the Lord; not, as Duncker (Gesch. des Alt. I. s. 504) states, in order to find out whether this really was the law of Moses, but rather, because the genuineness of the book appears to him to be beyond question, he sends to inquire whether and how the punishments which are threatened may be averted. He desires to learn whether the measure of sin is already full or whether there is yet hope of grace (Von Gerlach). Only a prophetical declarationthe word of the Lordcould give him an answer to this question. Ahikam appears afterwards as the friend and protector of Jeremiah (Jer 26:24), and as father of Gedaliah, the governor of the cities of Judah (Jer 40:5). Achbor is called, 2Ch 34:20, Abdon, perhaps only by a mistake of the letter characters. According to Jer 26:22; Jer 36:12, he was the father of Elnathan, who belonged to the most intimate associates of king Zedekiah. Asahiah, who is only mentioned here, is spoken of as the servant of the king, that is, as an officer in his immediate service.Unto Huldah, the prophetess (2Ki 22:14). The king had commanded the deputation to inquire of the Lord without directing them to go to any particular person. The reason why they sought her is probably hinted at in the remark which is added, and which in itself appears unimportant, that she lived in Jerusalem. The two prophets who made their appearance during Josiahs reign were Jeremiah and Zephaniah. The former came from Anathoth in Benjamin (Jer 1:1). He was probably at this time still in that city. The latter, according to Pseudoepiphanius (De prophet. 19), belonged to the tribe of Simeon and came . The deputation went to Huldah because she was the only one at Jerusalem who had the gift of prophecy. In order to show that she was a person of good position, not only the name and office of her husband are given, but also the name of two of his ancestors. He was keeper of the wardrobe, either of the royal wardrobe, or of that of the sanctuary; the latter is more probable on comparing 2Ki 10:22 (Bertheau). In the second part, i.e., in the lower city. See Neh 11:9; Zep 1:10. Josephus: . Thenius: In the second district of the (lower) city, which was afterwards included within the walls. [He thus identifies it with a small hill which formed the extreme north-western suburb of the city.]
2Ki 22:15. And she said unto them, &c. She addressed her reply in the first place to the man that sent you (2Ki 22:15-17), afterwards to the king of Judah which sent you (2Ki 22:18-20). The first part was addressed not only to the king but to every one who would hear; the second part was addressed to the king especially (Keil). This is more simple and natural than Thenius notion: In the first part, Huldah has only the subject matter in mind, while in 2Ki 22:18, in the quieter (?) flow of her words, she takes notice of the state of mind of the particular person who sent to make the inquiry.All the words of the book (2Ki 22:16), stands in apposition with which precedes. In Chronicles we find instead: All the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah (2Ch 34:24). in 2Ki 22:18 is not to be connected with what follows: Thy heart was tender on account of these words (Luther), but it is to be taken as a nominative absolute: as for the words which, &c. The sense of 2Ki 22:18-19 is: Because thou hast heard me and taken heed to my threats, I will also hear thee and not fulfil these threats upon thee. is to be taken here in the sense of timid, Deu 20:8; Jer 51:46. The threats had awakened terror and dismay in him.A desolation and a curse, see Jer 44:22. The fact that Josiah was slain in battle (2Ki 23:29) does not contradict in 2Ki 22:20. That only means to say that he should die without surviving the desolation of Jerusalem, as we see from the added promise: thine eyes shall not see, &c. (Keil). According to 2Ch 35:24-25, Josiah was laid in the sepulchre with high honors, followed by the lamentations of the whole people.
2Ki 23:1. And the king sent and they gathered unto him, &c. Although the king had received an answer which was favorable only in its bearings on himself, his first care was to bring together the entire people, to make them acquainted with the law-book, to lead them to repent, and so to avert as far as possible the threatened punishment. In 2Ki 23:2 all the classes of the population are mentioned in order to show how much Josiah had it at heart that the entire people, without distinction of rank or class, should become acquainted with the Law. Among these classes the priests and prophets are mentioned. Keil supposes that Jeremiah and Zephaniah were among these in order that they might, by their participation, accomplish the renewal of the covenant, and that the prophets might then undertake the task of bringing home to the hearts of the people, by earnest preaching in Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, the obligations of the covenant. If that had been so, however, the prophets could not have been merely incidentally mentioned, but they would have been especially pointed out as prominent agents in the work. The , who here stand with the priests and form one class with them, are evidently not the prophets in the narrower and more especial sense [i.e., as persons who foretold future events and pronounced the oracles of God], but the word is a general designation of the persons whose duty it was to preach and to explain the Law. The Chronicler (2Ch 34:30) has instead , which is no contradiction or arbitrary alteration, for it was the duty and calling of the house of Levi to preach and to interpret the Law (Deu 17:18; Deu 31:9 sq.;2Ch 33:10; 2Ch 17:8-9; 2Ch 35:3); the Chaldee paraphrase therefore interprets here by , .
[What we understand by interpretation of the law did not exist until after the captivity. The levites are represented in Deuteronomy as the guardians and readers of the Law, and in Chronicles we find them charged with its publication, but nowhere are they represented as doing what the scribes did at a later time. That is an interpretation of the rabbis which is borrowed from their own time, and is unhistorical as applied to this text. Neither were the prophets divided into two classes, one of which was charged with the office of interpretation. There is no evidence of such a division, or of such a duty of the prophets. Certainly if the duty of interpreting the jaw had been given by Moses to the levites, the whole spirit of the Israelitish constitution forbids us to believe that other personsprophetspersons of every tribe, could have interfered with hat duty or shared in it. We cannot thus reconcile our text with that of Chronicles.We may get a correct idea of the incident referred to by observing: (a) that the class of prophets was, at this time, very large. The name applies to them all. No distinction is made, and the name is even applied to false prophets, whether with an epithet, marking them as false (Eze 13:2-3; Isa 9:14; Jer 6:13, &c.), or without any such epithet (Hos 4:5; Hos 9:7-8). The same tame is given to the prophets of Baal. The original meaning of the word is speaker or orator, but it is essential to the idea of a in the O. T. that he speaks under the influence of divine illumination or inspiration. He may be false, and pretend to an illumination which he has not, or he nay speak in the name of a false god, but, as one who claims and pretends to illumination, he is a . (b) There were schools in which persons were trained to this office and work. Originally such persons were few in number, but the book of Jeremiah shows conclusively that, in the time of that prophet, they were numerous, and that many had the name without the spirit. Many were called, but few chosen. (c) The aim of the schools of the prophets was to nourish faith in Jehovah and worship of Him; to cultivate men who preserved the traditions of the Jehovah religion, perpetuated the great doctrines which the prophets continually reiterate, and cultivated insight into divine truth, (d) The schools could do no more than spend their labor on those who offered themselves for the work. The truth of their calling could only appear in their subsequent work. Hence the authority of the prophets was nothing more or less than their divine calling, which manifested itself in their later labors. In fact, it was lot until Isaiah and Jeremiah had been long dead that their labors were ratified and could be estimated. (e) The words or writings of the fifteen or sixteen whose works remain to us comprise, if we may so speak, only the cream of the prophetic utterances of centuries. (f) The prophets never base their teachings on Moses, but teach originally. They do not say: Thus saith Moses. They do not quote the Pentateuch as an authority. They never impress their commands by quoting the Law of Moses as the supreme authority of faith and duty. If they did, their works would not be Holy Scripture, but commentaries, or, at most, sermons. On the contrary, they say: Thus saith the Lord. Their work is original and creative; it is not merely in the way of application or reflexion. When they quote the Law of the Lord they quote principles and doctrines which were fundamental in the Israelitish constitution. They do not refer to specific ordinances and enactments, but to the spirit and principles of the Jehovah-religion. We have an analogy in the frequent reference in modern sermons to the will of God. This refers only generally to the Bible, and includes those things also which are not specifically ordained in the Bible, but which a Christian conscience recognizes as Gods will. (g) It is, therefore, an error to attempt to enhance the character and authority of the great prophets by supposing that, during their life-time, they were separated from others of their class. (h) It is also an error to suppose that they held any insubordinate or independent place in the body politic. We admire these men who rebuked kings, and dictated public policy in great crises, but we do them injustice if we believe that, on ordinary occasions, and in ordinary duties, they emancipated themselves from the obligations of subjects of the kingdom.In the present case the text shows us the place of the prophets. They ranked with the priests as religious persons. If Jeremiah was in Jerusalem we may be sure that he took his place, simply and without ostentation, among his comrades in station and calling. We do not need to invent any special reason for the presence of the prophets. They were there simply as a class amongst the multitude assembled. (i) It is also an error to reconcile the text of Kings with that of Chronicles by identifying the levites, in function, with the prophets, or any class of the prophets. In the time of the chronicler the prophets had ceased to exist, certainly as a class. He was accustomed to see levites in this place by the side of the priests on such occasions, and that is the simple reason why he mentions them as occupying that place in the present instance.W. G. S.]
Both small and great. This does not mean both the children and the grown-up persons, but, both the lower classes and the people of distinction. No doubt the king left to the priests or prophets the duty of reading the book, but himself took the oath of fidelity to the covenant from the people. He therefore took his place upon the platform (see notes on 2Ki 11:14).
2Ki 23:4. And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, &c. As in 2Ki 11:17-18, the conclusion of the covenant was followed by the extirpation of idolatry, first by the removal of the utensils of this cultus (ver 4), then by the execution of the priests of it (ver 5), then by the destruction and desecration of the places in which it was practised (2Ki 23:6 sq.). are not, as the rabbis say, the deputies of the high-priest, but, in contrast with him, the younger and subordinate priests. See 1Ch 15:18; 2Ch 31:12; 1Sa 8:2. The keepers of the door are the levites whose duty it was to guard the temple (2Ki 22:4; 1Ch 23:5). On Baal and Aschera and upon the host of heaven, see notes on 2Ki 21:3 [also notes on 2Ki 16:3; 2Ki 17:17]. This burning took place in obedience to Deu 7:25; Deu 12:3. It was accomplished outside of Jerusalem, because the things were unclean, on the fields of the Kidron, north-east of the city, where the Kidron valley is broader than between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. Asa had caused an idol to be burned there (1Ki 15:13), and Hezekiah caused all the impure things which were found in the temple to be carried thither (2Ch 29:16). Not even the ashes, however, might remain there. They were carried to Bethel, certainly for no other reason than because that had been the chief place of origin for all idolatrous and illegitimate worship ever since the time of Jeroboam (1Ki 12:33). That which had proceeded from thence Josiah sent back thitherin ashes. Thenius conjecture: , he carried the ashes into the house of nothingness, i.e., he scattered them on all the winds, is, to say the least, unnecessary.
2Ki 23:5. And he caused to desist the idolatrous priests, &c.: Not, he caused to perish, put to death (Sept. ; Vulg. delevit), but, he caused to cease, or set aside. The word occurs besides only in Hos 10:5 and Zep 1:4. The etymology of the word is uncertain. The rabbis derive it from , nigredo, because they wore black garments, but we have no instance of priests who wore black garments, and this etymology is certainly false. According to Gesenius it comes from , to execute or accomplish, and means the celebrant (of the sacred offices), , sacrificed. [This is Keils opinion, not Gesenius. The latter, in the Thesaurus s. v. follows the etymology above ascribed to the rabbis. He says that it means blackness, sadness, and so, concretely, one who walks in black garments, i.e., a grieving, sad, ascetic, priest. As it is only used of the priests of false worship, it would be very remarkable that the name applied to them should mean, strictly, ascetics.W. G. S.] Frst connects it with the Arabic chamar = coluit deum, hence, one who serves, a servant. It certainly refers to a kind of priests, not necessarily of idols, for in Hos 10:5 the priests of Jeroboams Jehovah-calf-worship are so called, and here they are distinguished from those who offered incense to Baal. Probably it refers to those who without actually being priests, exercised sacerdotal functions either in the service of the calves or of false divinities. Baal serves as a designation of the entire cultus which was covered by his name, as if it were said: Baal, i.e., the sun, &. (Thenius). The , from , lodging, dwelling, station, are the twelve divisions of the Zodiac marked by the figures and names of animals; the twelve constellations of the Zodiac, which are called in Job 38:22 (see Gesen. Thes. II. 869). (2Ki 23:6), means not one but many Astarte-statues which Manasseh had set up in the temple (2Ki 21:7). If he removed them after his return from Babylon (2Ch 33:15), they were reinstated by Amon.On the graves of the common people. The chronicler says: On the graves of those who had sacrificed to them (the false gods). Evidently this is a gloss added by the chronicler himself. Persons of the common folk [as the text reads literally] are not worshippers of false gods, but common people. These did not have hereditary sepulchres hewn out of the rock (Winer, R.-W.-B. I. 444), as the rich and noble had. They were buried in the open fields where the corpses were more likely to be dug up by wild animals. The present burying-place of the Jews is in the Kidron valley. It is evident from Jer 26:23 that this burial was not disgraceful, although it was less honorable than that in a rock-hewn sepulchre. If this had been the burying-place for idol-worshippers, it would have been the usual burying-place in the time of Manasseh, whereas at that time it was rather the faithful servants of Jehovah who were dishonorably buried. Josiahs reason for throwing the ashes on these graves was, therefore, not to desecrate them as the graves of idolaters (Keil), but in order still further to dishonor the ashes of the destroyed idols.On (2Ki 23:7) see note on 1Ki 14:24. Only male prostitutes, not female (Thenius) can be understood. They had their dwellings (tents or cabins) near the temple, perhaps in the outer court. In these also dwelt the women who wove for the Ashera. Whether these were tents, and, if so, of what kind they were (hardly, as Ewald thinks, garments [he alters the text and reads Gesch. III. 718]) is not clear. 2Ki 17:30 does not throw any light on it. Movers (Phn. I. s. 686) says: The castrated male prostitute () imagines or pretends that he is a woman: negant se viros esse * * * mulieres se volunt credi. Firmic. He lives in association with women, and the latter, in their turn, have a peculiar inclination towards him.
2Ki 23:8. And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah. 2Ki 23:8-9 belong together. The true levitical priests, who exercised their functions on the high places instead of in the temple, he caused to come to Jerusalem in order to make them desist from this. He caused the high-places to be made unfit for use by desecrating them. However, these priests, since they had forfeited their priestly dignity, were not allowed to perform priestly offices in the temple. They were employed simply as levites. They were allowed to eat unleavened, or sacrificial, bread, but not in company with the other priests (cf. Eze 44:10-14). They were, therefore, placed in the same category with those sons of Aaron who were prevented by some physical defect from undertaking the hereditary functions of their family (Lev 21:21). It is not stated in the text that they continued to be participes emolumentorum sacerdotalium (Clericus).From Geba to Beer sheba, that is, throughout the entire kingdom. Geba is the Gibea in the territory of Benjamin, near Ramah, the home of Saul. See notes on 1Ki 15:22, and Knobel on Isa 10:29. It is mentioned as the northern limit. Beersheba is mentioned as the southernmost and last seat of illegal worship (Amos 5:5; 8:15).The high-places of the gates were places of worship (in this case simply altars), either close to the gates, or, since these were large open buildings for public meetings and intercourse (Nahum 8:16; Rth 3:11; Pro 22:22), even inside of them. Probably these altars served for the foreigners as they came in or went out to offer sacrifices of prayer or of thanksgiving in reference to the transactions in which they were about to engage, or which they had just completed. The two following clauses, each of which begins with , define these high-places more nearly, and it is not admissible to supply prsertim or imprimis (Clericus, Dathe, Maurer) before the first , and then to regard the second relative as referring to this. How can we comprehend the description of a high-place which was at the entrance of the gate of Joshua, and at the same time on the left hand of the gate of the city? As reference is made to two high-places in two different gates, the verse cannot be otherwise understood than as it is interpreted by Thenius: He tore down the high-places of the gates, (the high-place) which was at the entrance of the gate of Joshua (as well as that) which was on the left hand in the gate of the city. So also Keil and Ewald. Neither of these gates is mentioned anywhere else, at least by the same name. Thenius locates the former in the inside of the city, because he assumes that the governor of the city must have lived in the citadel, Millo, and that, this gate must have been one which connected the lower city with the citadel, and was close to his dwelling. This gate was called, in later times, Gennath. This, however, is a pure guess. The gate of the city may have been the valley-gate, or the Jaffa-gate, on the west side of the city towards the valley of Gihon, through which the traffic with the Mediterranean passed.
2Ki 23:10. And he defiled Topheth. is a special designation of the spot in the valley of Hinnom, south of the city, where, during the time of apostasy, children were sacrificed to Moloch. In Isa 30:33 this place is called the pyre. Frst derives the word from the unused root , to burn up. The majority of the expositors, however, derive it from , to spit or vomit, that is, to detest, hold in abhorrence. would then mean abomination (see Rdiger in Gesenius Thesaurus, p. 1497). The place either had this name from the time of Josiah, who defiled it by burning there the bones of the dead (2Ki 23:16), or else it was thus named still earlier, by the faithful servants of Jehovah, on account of the detestation they felt for the abominable child-sacrifices which were practised there. Hitzig and Bttcher take as an appellative from , to groan, and translate: Valley of the wailings of children.And he took away the horses, 2Ki 23:11. The same expressions are used here in regard to the horses as in 2Ki 23:5 in regard to the . They were given (), that is, established or instituted, and he took them away (). Both expressions must therefore be understood here as they are there. He did away with the horses, but did with the chariots as he had done with the idol-images (2Ki 23:6), he burned them (). If the horses had been of wood he would have burned them also. It follows that they were living horses. Horses are often mentioned as animals sacred to the sun among Oriental peoples (see the proofs quoted in Bochart, Hieroz. I. 2, 10). Horses were not only sacrificed to the sun, as the supreme divinity (Herod. 1:216), but they were also used to draw the sacred chariot (Curt. 2Ki 3:3; 2Ki 3:11; see Herod. 1:189). This latter was the purpose for which they were kept here. They served to draw the sacred chariot in solemn processions, representing the course of the sun through the zodiac, not, as Keil asserts, following the rabbis, to go forth to meet the rising sun. [This custom of keeping horses sacred to the sun is connected with the idea of the sun as a flaming chariot drawn through the heavens. Hence horses and a car were kept on earth as sacred to, and symbolical of, the sun.] is not to be translated, as it is by De Wette: so that they came no more into the house of Jehovah, nor is it to be connected with (he removed them from the entrance of the temple), but it states where the place was where the horses were ordinarily kept: from the coming into the house, that is, when any one came into the temple (through the western or rear door of the fore-court, the gate , 1Ch 26:16), the place of the horses was on the side of him to or towards () the chamber of Nathan-melech. This chamber was . The in the outer court (see notes on 1Ki 6:36) were side rooms which served for different purposes; not only as dwellings for the priests who were on duty (Eze 40:45 sq.), but also as store-rooms for different materials (1Ch 9:26; 2Ch 31:12). This chamberlain (2Ki 20:18), Nathan-Melech, of whom nothing further is known, was, no doubt, charged with the care of the sacred horses. It is impossible to decide whether the was his dwelling, and the stable of the horses was near by (Thenius), or whether this chamber itself was arranged as a stable for them (Keil). No one disputes that is the same as , 1Ch 26:18. In the latter place the divisions of the gate-keepers of the temple are stated in 2Ki 23:12-19. As these had their posts only in and near the temple, and two of them were especially appointed for the , the word cannot mean suburb (the rabbis and De Wette), nor any other locality outside of the fore-court of the temple. The ordinary interpretation of the word as the colonnade (Gesenius, Bunsen) is also excluded, for the Parbar is distinctly designated in the place quoted as lying on the west or rear side of the temple, where certainly it is least likely that a colonnade was built which formed the feature distinguishing that side from the others. [Bhr, in his translation, renders by in den Sulenhallen, in the colonnades.] We have rather to think of some specially marked space on the west side, inside of the fore-court. Of the six watchmen who were posted at the west side, four had posts assigned them on the street, that is, at the gate which led to the street, and only two in the Parbar. The latter must therefore have been inside the court, otherwise it could not have been left to the weaker guard. It is not stated what particular use this space, called the Parbar, was put to. We can only suppose that it was used for purposes for which the other sides of the court were not well adapted. The more specific details as to the size of the space, the wall by which it was surrounded, &c., which Thenius gives in his notes on the passage, are the result of mere combinations.
2Ki 23:12. And the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz. The of Ahaz was certainly not the upper chamber which was above the sanctuary of the temple (see notes on 1Ki 6:20), but only a chamber which was first erected by this idolatrous king, and which was probably over one of the outbuildings in the forecourt, which, according to Jer 35:4, at least some of them, had different stories one above another. Perhaps it was over a gate. It probably served for observations on the stars, and the altars were for the worship of the constellations (Zep 1:5; Jer 19:13). [It therefore proves that the Assyrio-Chaldean star-worship was introduced in the time of Ahaz and Pekah. See notes on 2Ki 16:3; 2Ki 17:17, above, pp. 169 and 186.] He tore down the altars which Manasseh had made (2Ki 21:5). is used as in verse 7. Keil translates the following : He crushed them from thence, taking it from , to crush, pulverize, and making it equivalent to in 2Ki 23:6. But doos not coincide well with the notion, of crushing, which, moreover, is fully expressed in . It must be taken from , to run, in the sense of to hasten (Isa 59:7); he hastened thence since he had yet all the high-places outside of Jerusalem to destroy (2Ki 23:13). The Chaldee paraphrase explains it by , that is, he removed from thence (Ps. 88:19); the Sept.: . Thenius therefore agrees with Kimchi in reading : He caused to runand cast, &c, that is, He gave orders to remove and cast with all haste, &c. (Jer 49:19). In this case he probably cast the dbris directly over the wall of the temple enclosure down into the valley. And the high-places that were before Jerusalem, &c. 2Ki 23:13-14 are a direct continuation of 2Ki 23:12, and they state what Josiah did in regard to the high-places before the city, which had existed long before Ahaz and Manasseh. On these high-places, see notes on 1Ki 11:7. The Mount of Corruption is the southernmost peak of the Mount of Olives which lay to the East () of Jerusalem. It received this name on account of the idolatry which was practised there. Among Christians it is now called, Mount of Offence, mons offensionis, which the Vulg. has in the place before us. On the images and Astarte-statues (2Ki 23:14) see notes on 1Ki 14:23. does not mean their elevated pedestals (Thenius), for would not fit into this meaning, but, in general, their places. It is to be observed that it is not said in reference to Solomons high-places (in 2Ki 23:13) that he tore them down, as it is said of those which were of later origin (2Ki 23:6-8; 2Ki 23:12), but only that he defiled them. No doubt this is because they had been already torn down by Hezekiah, or perhaps even before his time (2Ch 31:1). He only defiled the places where they had been (perhaps some parts were still remaining) in order to obliterate thoroughly all the false worship. Thenius is certainly mistaken when he asserts: The idol-temples which Solomon had erected remained until the time of Josiah, though they were several times, e.g., under Hezekiah, placed under interdict. How could Hezekiah, who even removed the heights where Jehovah was worshipped (2Ki 18:4), have allowed idol-temples to stand untouched, with their images, over against Jerusalem? [As far as the text gives any information in regard to the matter, either here or elsewhere, Solomons heights, &c., remained until this time. The inference as to what other reformers must have done, is only an inference. If we allow ourselves to infer that such and such things had been done before this time, we obliterate those peculiarities of Josiahs reformation which make it especially interesting.W. G. S.] We do not need to assume, as Menochius does: Ab impiis regibus excitata sunt fana et idola iis similia, qu excitaverat Salomon iisdem locis, ideoque Salomoni tribuuntur primo illorum auctori.
2Ki 23:15. Moreover the altar that was at. Beth-el.After Josiah had put an end to all illegal worship in Judah, he extended the reformation to the former kingdom of Israel, whence that worship had originally sprung, and where it had been made the basis of the political constitution (1Ki 12:26 sq.). It is told in 2Ki 23:15-20 what he did there. From the time of Jeroboam Bethel had been the chief seat of the calf-worship (1Ki 12:28; 1Ki 13:1; Amo 3:14; Amo 7:10; Amo 7:13; Jer 48:13; see Hos 10:5). This altar was the one mentioned in 1Ki 12:33; 1Ki 13:1. The first in 2Ki 23:15 cannot be taken as an accusative of place, on the high-place, as Thenius takes it, but only as apposition to altar. The Bamah was a house on an elevation, for he tore it down and burned it. The altar did not stand in the house, but before it. In what follows the statement is clearer: that altar and the high-place. After the immigration of the heathen colonists an Astarte-statue seems to have taken the place of the calf-image there.On 2Ki 23:16 sq. see the Prelim. Rem. on 1 Kings 13. 2Ki 23:16-18 belong, according to Sthelin (Krit. Untersuch. s. 156), to the author and not to the document which served him as authority. According to Thenius they are taken from the sequel to 1Ki 13:1-32. This, he says, is evident from in 2Ki 23:19, which corresponds to that in 2Ki 23:15, and, still more distinctly, from the consideration that Josiah could not defile the altar by burning mens bones upon it (2Ki 23:16) after he had broken it in pieces (2Ki 23:15). But, if the remarkable incident in 2Ki 23:16-18 was to be narrated, it could not be mentioned anywhere but here, because it took place at the destruction of the high-place at Bethel. 2Ki 23:19 then carries on the history of the destruction and extirpation of the illegal cultus throughout Samaria, and goes on to tell what was done elsewhere than at Bethel. As for the difficulty about the altar, the author must have been very careless to make a statement in 2Ki 23:16 which was inconsistent with what he had said in 2Ki 23:15. He says nothing in 2Ki 23:15 about burning the altar, but only about burning the house and the Astarte-statue. He caused bones to be burned on the spot where the altar had stood in order that that also might become unclean and never more be fit for an altar, i.e., for a place of worship. The author, no doubt, in many ways made use of old authorities and incorporated them into his work, but he certainly never thoughtlessly patched separate pieces together, or arbitrarily inserted a bit here and there.He turned himself, i.e., to look about; cf. Exo 2:12; Exo 16:10. The mount, where the sepulchres were, cannot be the one on which the altar and the Bamah stood, but one in the neighborhood, which was to be seen from the one where the Bamah stood. After the Sept. have the words: When Jeroboam, at the festival, stood at the altar, and he turned his eyes upon the sepulchre of the man of God who had spoken these words. Thenius regards this addition as originally having belonged to the perfect text, but it may easily be recognized as a gloss.
2Ki 23:17. What grave-stone is that? The sepulchres of prominent persons were marked by monuments placed before them (Eze 39:15; Gen 35:20; Jer 31:21). This monument attracted the kings attention and he asked whom it commemorated.
2Ki 23:18. Out of Samraia. The name here refers not to the city but to the country, and stands in contrast with the words from Judah in 2Ki 23:17. It therefore marks the origin of this prophet; he was an Israelitish, not a Jewish prophet (Thenius). The priests whom Josiah caused to be put to death (2Ki 23:20) were not levitical or Israelitish priests at all, but, unquestionably, idol-priests who had established themselves in the country. cannot be understood as if Josiah offered these priests as a sacrifice to God. If that were so he would have helped to establish the human sacrifices which it was the object of his reformation to root out. here has the sense of to slaughter, as often elsewhere (see Exeg. on 1Ki 19:21). They suffered upon their own altars the death-penalty imposed by the Law (Deu 17:2-5). At the same time these altars were thereby defiled and made unfit for use. According to Tertullian public child-sacrifices lasted in Africa usque ad proconsulatum Tiberii, qui eosdem sacerdotes in iisdem arboribus templi votivis crucibus exposuit.
2Ki 23:21. And the king commanded all the people. Josiah had abolished with relentless severity all which was forbidden in the book of the covenant and the Law to which he had bound the people by an oath of allegiance (2Ki 23:3); now, however, he proceeded to perform all which was there commanded, and he began, as Hezekiah had done (2Ch 30:1), by ordaining a passover, for this feast had been instituted to commemorate the exodus and the selection of Israel to be the peculiar people, which was the foundation of its national destiny, and of its calling in human history. No other feast could have served so well to inaugurate the restored order as this one, which had been celebrated even in Egypt. The statement: in the book of this covenant does not mean: which is mentioned in this book. That would be a superfluous remark, and the translation would not be a correct rendering of the original. It means that the Passover was to be observed according to the regulations prescribed in the book which had been found. The translation of Luther [E. V. also] following the Sept. and Vulg. is not correct: Im Buck dieses Bundes [in the book of this covenant], for that would require . The emphasis falls on book. Josiah does not wish that the passover shall be celebrated according to precedent and tradition, but according to the regulations of the book which had been read before the people. This is the only conception of its meaning according to which we get a good sense, for the remark in 2Ki 23:22 : surely there was not holden such a passover, &c. refers to what immediately precedes: In this book of the covenant, so that the sense is: No passover had been so strictly observed according to the regulations of the Law since the times of the judges. Even the Passover of King Hezekiah had not been perfectly conformed to the law, for he was compelled by circumstances to deviate in some respects (2Ch 30:2; 2Ch 30:17 sq.). Clericus: Crediderim hoc velle scriptorem sacrum: per tempora regum nunquam ab omnibus secundum omnes leges Mosaicas tam accurate Pascha celebratum fuisse. Consuetudinem antea, etiam sub piis regibus, videntur secuti potius quam ipsa verba legis; quod cum fit, multa necessario mutantur ac negliguntur. Sed inventi nuper libri verba attendi diligentissime voluit Josias. It is difficult to understand how any one could understand from this passage, as De Wette does, that no Passover had ever been celebrated before this one. Thenius also asserts that it can hardly be doubted that the celebration of the Passover was neglected from the time of the Judges on, and that it did not begin again until after the ordinances of the Law in regard to it had once more become known under Josiah, because there is no reference whatever to the Passover either under Samuel, or David, or Solomon. He therefore infers that in order to bring about an accord with the story in Chronicles of the Passover feast instituted by Hezekiah was substituted for in 2Ki 23:21, and for in 2Ki 23:22. In this way, of course, anything may be found in the text which any one wants to read there. Neither the day of Atonement not the Feast of Pentecost is expressly mentioned in the historical books, and the Feast of Tabernacles is only mentioned in connection with the consecration of the temple (1Ki 8:2). It would therefore follow that the Israelites alone of all ancient peoples had no religious festivals from the time of the Judges. If, however, one festival was celebrated it was certainly the feast of the Passover, which was moreover a natural festival (Lev 23:10 sq.; Deu 16:9). The same chronicler who recorded the Passover under Hezekiah also gives a detailed account of the one under Josiah, and adds at the close of his account (2Ch 35:18) the same comment which we here find in 2Ki 23:22. We cannot, therefore, assume that 2Ki 23:22 has suffered any alterations in order to bring it into accord with the record of the Passover under Hezekiah. On 2Ki 23:23 see the Prelim. Rem.
2Ki 23:24. Moreover the necromancers.After Josiah had completed the reformation of the public worship, he went on to put an end to all the superstitious practices and idol-worship which. were carried on in private houses (Thenius). The necromancers and wizards had arisen under Manasseh (2Ki 21:6). The Teraphim, or household-images, were the penates, the gods of the fireside, to which a magical power was ascribed. They served as a kind of talisman for the family, and as a kind of private oracle. Cf. Gen 31:19; Jdg 18:14; Eze 21:26; Zec 10:2. On see 1Ki 15:12 and 2Ki 17:12. They were doubtless private household gods. And all the abominations that were spied, i.e., everything which was to be abhorred and which was found anywhere, for it might well be that many things of this character were concealed (Thenius). That he might establish, i.e., put in operation. Even private and family religious observances were to be regulated according to the newly discovered book, in order that it might serve as the norm and rule for the entire life of the people. The author therefore proceeds (2Ki 23:25): And like unto him, &c., by which he means, according to the context, that the entire law of Moses was not so strictly and severely carried out by any king before Josiah, not even by Hezekiah, although the latter was not at all inferior in genuine piety and in trust in the Lord (see notes on 2Ki 18:5). With all his heart, &., has distinct reference to Deu 6:5.In 2Ki 23:26-27 the author passes on to the story not only of the end of Josiah, but also of the fall of the kingdom (Keil). in 2Ki 23:26 stands in contrast with in 2Ki 23:25. Josiah turned to Jehovah, but Jehovah turned not from his wrath. Quamvis enim rex religiosissimus esset populusque metu ei pareret, propterea tamen animus populi non erat mutatus, ut satis liquet a castigationibus Jeremi, Sophoni, et aliorum prophetarum, qui circa hc tempora et paulo post vaticinati sunt (Clericus). Cf. Jer 1:10; Zep 1:2-6; Zep 3:1-4. The corruption had struck such deep root during the reign of Manasseh that it could not be eradicated even by Josiahs severe measures. The Law was observed externally, but the conversion of the entire people was out of the question. This became distinctly apparent after Josiahs death. Hence the long-threatened judgments of Jehovah must now fall. On 2Ki 23:27 see Jer 25:26, and notes on 2Ki 21:4-7.
2Ki 23:28. Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, &c. The author now hastens to the close of the history of Josiah. It is necessary to tell how he met his end, but he does this very briefly (2Ki 23:29). The more specific details are given by the chronicler (2Ch 35:20-27). Necho (in Chronicles and in Jer 46:2 : ; in the Sept. and Josephus ) was, according to Herodotus 2:158), who calls him , the son of Psammetich I. According to Manetho he was the sixth king of the twenty-sixth, Saite, dynasty, and was an energetic prince who built fleets both on the Mediterranean and on the Red sea. The King of Assyria, against whom Necho was marching, can hardly have been Sardanapalus, under whom Nineveh was destroyed by the Babylonians and Medes, but the Babylonian Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, who, as ruler of Assyria also, might now be called king of that country. For Necho lost the battle of Carchemish (2Ch 35:20) to Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 46:2), and Josephus says (Antiq. x. 5, 1) that Necho undertook this expedition against , , . Evidently Necho desired, now that the Assyrian empire had come to an end, to hinder the Medes and Babylonians from forming a world-monarchy, and to become himself ruler of Assyria (see Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 105 sq. II. s. 143. Duncker, Gesch. des Alterthums I. s. 499 sq.). He did not take the long and tedious way through the desert et Tih and southern Palestine, but made use of his fleet, and landed probably in the neighborhood of the Phnician city of Akko, in a bay of the Mediterranean. This is evident from the fact that Josiah did not march southwards to meet him, but northwards, and that they met at Megiddo, in the plain of Jezreel, at the foot of Mount Carmel. On the situation of this city see Exeg. on 1Ki 4:12; 1Ki 9:15. Herodotus calls it , and Ewald understands him to refer to Megdel, south-east of Akko; but, as Keil shows in his comment on the verse, this can hardly be correct. He slew him. This curt statement finds its explanation in 2Ch 35:22-24, according to which it was not Necho himself that slew Josiah, but the latter was mortally wounded by an arrow from the Egyptian bowmen, and then died at Hadad-Rimmon (Zec 12:11), not far from Megiddo.The people of the land (see 2Ki 21:24) made the younger son of Josiah king, as we see by comparing 2Ki 23:31 with 2Ki 23:36, perhaps because they had greater hopes of him, though in this they were mistaken (Jer 22:10 sq.). It is stated that they anointed him (a ceremony which is not elsewhere expressly mentioned in speaking of a change upon the throne), perhaps because he was not the son whom Josiah had chosen to succeed him (see notes on 1Ki 1:5; 1Ki 1:34), but nevertheless they desired to give him the consecration of a legitimate king.
[On the contemporaneous history see the Supplementary Historical Note after the next Exegetical section.]
HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL
1. King Josiah was the last true theocratic king of Judah. Higher praise is given to him than to any other king, even to Hezekiah, namely, that he turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses. Sirach, in his panegyric on the fathers, groups him, as we have said above, with David and Hezekiah, besides whom there was no king who did not more or less abandon the Law of the Lord. He also further says of him what he says of no other king: , , , (Sir 49:1). Josephus also (Antiq. x. 4, 1) is loud in his praise. If we take into consideration, on the one hand, that under his two immediate predecessors, Manasseh and Amon, who together reigned for sixty years, apostasy and corruption had spread far more widely, and penetrated far more deeply, than under Ahaz, who only reigned sixteen years, and, on the other hand, that Josiah, at the time of his accession, was only a boy of eight years, who might be easily influenced and led astray, then it appears to be almost a miracle that he became what he was. This miracle is not by any means explained by supposing that, after the death of Amon, the priests of Jehovah once more gained influence at court (Duncker), or that the priests of Jehovah succeeded in getting the young prince, whom the opposite party had elevated to the throne, under their control (Menzel). We have not the slightest hint that Josiah was educated or controlled by any priest of Jehovah, as was the case with Joash under entirely different circumstances (2Ki 12:2). Neither did the prophet Jeremiah have influence upon his education, for that prophet made his first appearance, while he was yet a young man, in Josiahs thirteenth year, at Anathoth, from whence he was driven away; moreover he was not the son of the high-priest, but of another Hilkiah (Jer 1:1; Jer 1:6). Ewalds comment is far better (Gesch. III. s. 696): We cannot reach an accurate notion of the educational development through which he passed during his minority, but the decision and strictness with which he defended and maintained the more austere religion, in the eighteenth year of his reign and the twenty-sixth of his life, show plainly enough that he had early attained to a firm determination in favor of true nobility and manliness of life. It may well be that the grand old history of Israel, with its fundamental truths, as well as the memory of Davids greatness, of the marvelous deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib, and of all else which was glorious in the history of his ancestors, had early made a deep impression upon him. True as this is, however, it is not sufficient to account for such a phenomenon as Josiah was, since he stands before us almost like a Deus ex machina. His character is, as Hengstenberg says (Christol. III. s. 496), as little to be comprehended on the basis of mere natural causes as is the existence of Melchisedek in the midst of the Canaanites, who were hastening on with steady tread and ceaseless march towards the consummation of their sins. The causes which produced Josiah, such as he was, are the same which produced Jeremiah. If it was marvelous that a man like Hezekiah followed a man like Ahaz, it was still more marvelous that an eight-year old boy like Josiah followed men like Manasseh and Amon, and that he, during all his reign, should have turned neither to the right hand nor to the left, and: should have been unexampled in the entire history of the kings. It was no accident that a king like Josiah arose once more, and attained to the height of David as the model of a genuine theocratic king. It was a gracious gift from the God who had chosen Israel as His own peculiar people, for the accomplishment of His redemptive plan, and Who continued to raise up men who were endowed with gifts and strength to work in and for His plans, and to manifest themselves to His people as His instruments. If a king like Josiah could not restore the people to its calling, then the monarchy, as an institution, had failed of its object and was near its end. The kingdom must hasten to its downfall and the threatened judgments must come.
2. We are made acquainted, in this passage, only with those events in the reign of Josiah (thirty-one years) which appertained to the abolition of idolatry, and the restoration of the legitimate Jehovah-worship. It was by virtue of these events that his reign formed an epoch in the history of the kingdom. In comparison with these events, all else, in the judgment of this historian, sank into insignificance. We see, however, from a passage in the book of Jeremiah, that he was remarkable also in other respects, for the prophet presents him to his son, Jehoiakim, as a model: Shalt thou reign because thou closest thyself in cedar? Did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, and then it was well with him? &c. (Jer 22:13-17). Josephus says of him (I. c.): , , , , , , . . . The fact that he extended his reforming work into Samaria shows that he had attained to power and authority there: when and how he obtained this is nowhere stated, but the fact that he had it stands firm, and might be inferred even from other historical hints. After Esarhaddon, the successor of Sennacherib, the Assyrian power began to sink. The Scythians invaded the country from the North; on the East and South it was threatened by the Medes and Babylonians, who sought to make themselves independent of its power. These events belong to the time of the reign of Josiah. Josiah must have made vigorous opposition to the Scythians who were pressing forward in Palestine towards Egypt, devastating everything, for he remained undisturbed by them. It is very probable that it was easy for him, after their departure, to extend his authority over the territory of the former kingdom of the ten tribes, since the Assyrians were not, at that time, in a position to pay much attention to Israel, or to maintain intact their supremacy over it. In the year 625 the Assyrian power was being hard pushed by Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, and Josiahs reformation falls in the year 623, that is, in the time when the Assyrian empire was tottering and falling. Whether Josiah, as a king who desired in all things to be a genuine successor of David, had the intention of restoring the authority of the house of David over all the surrounding peoples (Ewald), or whether he regarded himself, after the fall of the northern kingdom, as king of the entire covenant people, and took advantage of the impending or already accomplished dissolution of the Assyrian empire, in order to conciliate to himself the Israelites who remained in Samaria, to make them well disposed towards his authority, and to win them to his reforms (Keil), we cannot decide, but this is certainly far more probable than that he as a vassal of the Assyrian king had a certain limited authority over this territory, and that his enterprise was permitted by the Assyrian authorities (Hess), or that he petitioned the new ruler of Assyria (Nabopolassar) for permission to exercise authority there in matters of religion (Thenius). However this may be, Josiah certainly stands before us as a king who was endowed with the above-mentioned virtues of a ruler, and with an enterprising spirit and warlike courage. These last traits are proved by his attempt to resist Necho, in regard to which see below. It is utterly erroneous, therefore, to see in this king, as modern historians are disposed to do, merely a passive instrument in the hands of the priesthood. [See the Supplementary Notes after the Exeg. sections on chaps. 20 and 21, and on the next following section of the text.]
3. The discovery of the book of the Law was, in spite of its apparent insignificance, an event of the first importance for all the subsequent history of Israel. Although Josiah had, before that event, turned to the Lord and sought to inaugurate a reform (see the Prelim. Rem.), yet it was this discovery which determined him to take measures of the utmost severity against all idolatry, and to restore the worship of Jehovah in Judah and in Israel. From this discovery dates the complete revolution in the circumstances of the kingdom, and from this time on this book had such authority that, in spite of all vicissitudes, and in spite of renewed apostasy, yet it held its place in the respect of the nation, it has been recognized until to-day by the Jews as their most sacred religious document, and their religion, in all its distinctive peculiarities, is built upon it. Suppose that this book had never been discovered, but had been lost for ever, so that only incomplete and inauthentic private copies had been preserved, scattered here and there, what would then have been the state of Judaism, and how different must have been the shape which its religious and moral development would have taken. The whole history of Israel bears witness to the guiding and controlling hand of God, but if there is any one event in which, more than in any other, the Providence of God is visible, then it is this important discovery. It was a physical proof that God watches over this document, which is the testimonial to Israel of its election, and the highest divine revelation; that he preserves it from the rage of idolaters; and that, even if it lies long unnoticed and unknown in the night of apostasy, he will bring it again to light, and make it to show its force once more, so that it is like a fire which consumes all which is false and corrupt, and like a hammer which breaks the rocks (Jer 23:29). The discovery of the book was a pledge to the king and people of the indestructibility of the divine written word.Modern historical science has taken an entirely different view of this event. The impression left by the devastations of the Scythians, says Duncker (Gesch. d. Alt. I. s. 503 sq.), who had left the land a desert, was deep and fresh in the minds of the people. The king was young, and, as it seems, open to influence. The priests were bound to take advantage of these circumstances to set up a stronger barrier against the Syrian forms of worship. Manassehs persecutions had led the Jehovah-priests to look about for means to prevent the recurrence of similar oppression. They naturally found themselves forced to an attempt to secure their creed and their official position against the changing will of the kings, to emancipate it from the fickle disposition of the people, and to put an end, at last, to the vacillation between Jehovah-cultus and foreign and heathen forms of worship. There was room to hope that by means of a law-book, which made the worship of Jehovah the basis of all national life, and embraced all social interests in its scope, all future perils to the priesthood might be prevented, their position might be permanently assured, and the Jehovah-worship might be securely established and strictly carried out. A codification of the rules which had been gradually formed by the priests as the scheme of life which would be pleasing to Jehovah, a compendium which should sharply emphasize the chief demands which religion made upon the laity, was, therefore, needed. For such a law-book alone was there hope that it would find acceptance, that it would be recognized by the king and by the people as an unquestionable authority, and as the organic law of the country, and that it might be completely and successfully put in operation. This was the purpose, and these were the fundamental principles on which this book (Deuteronomy), which Hilkiah, the high-priest, sent to the king, was compiled. Josiah was deeply moved by the contents of it, and by the threats which it pronounced against those who transgressed the Law of Jehovah. In order to convince himself of the genuineness of this book as the real law of Moses, he appealed from the authority of the temple and the high-priest to a female soothsayer. The wife of one of the kings officers, Huldah, was asked in regard to the genuineness of the book, and she declared that the words of the book were the words of Jehovah. We have an example, in this entire presentation of the incident, of the inexcusable manner in which modern historical science treats the biblical history. The book which was found was, according to this view, simply the book of Deuteronomy, an assumption which, as we have seen, is so contrary to the text that even the most daring and advanced critical science has recognized its falsehood. This book, too, is represented as having been secretly compiled after the Scythian invasion of Palestine, that is, as we have seen above, after 627 b. c., by the priests, without the knowledge of the king, and then as having been sent to the latter by Hilkiah, as the book written by Moses, and now rediscovered, so that it would be in fact forged. The king permits himself to be deceived, and is deeply moved by the threats invented by the priests, yet he turns, superstitiously to a female soothsayer, inquires of her in regard to the genuineness of the book, and she, being of course initiated into the secret of the priests, answers that the words of the priests are the words of Jehovah. The whole affair is thus reduced to cunning, deceit, and falsehood, on the part of the priests, in their own selfish interests. The priests, with the high-priest at the head, are vulgar cheats, and the king and people are cheated. The entire grand reformation, and the complete revolution in the state of the kingdom, with all the religious development which followed, rest upon a forgery. Such an arbitrary and utterly perverse conception refutes itself, and Ewald (l. c. s. 700) justly says: We must beware of obscuring the view of the incident by any such incorrect hypothesis as that the high-priest composed this book himself, but denied its origin. Want of conscientiousness in the conception of history cannot be more plainly evinced than by such unfounded and unjust suppositions. Ewald himself, on the other hand, ascribes the composition of Deuteronomy to a prophet who, during the persecution by Manasseh, took refuge in Egypt, and says: If the book was written thirty or forty years before, by a prophet who, at this time, was dead, and if it found circulation only gradually, so that it finally reached Palestine as it were by accident, a copy might accidentally have found its way into the temple, and there have been found by the high-priest. But the notion that the book of Deuteronomy was composed in Egypt stands in the air, and has thus far been adopted by none but Eisenlohr. Moreover, that it came to Palestine by accident, came into the temple by accident, by the hand of an unknown priest, and without the knowledge of the high-priest, so that it was found by him, againby accident, not only does not explain the incident, but it even makes it still more marvelous and inexplicable than it is according to the biblical account. If we assume that the book of Deuteronomy was first written in the time of Manasseh, or in the time of Josiah, and that the book of the Law thereby first reached its completion, then we are compelled to have recourse to all sorts of arbitrary hypotheses to account for the alleged discovery of the book at this time.
[It seems hardly probable that the question of the date and authorship of the book of Deuteronomy will ever be definitely settled. On the one hand, the traditional view is firmly fixed in the belief of the Church. On it are supposed to hang doctrinal inferences which would fall if the Mosaic authorship were surrendered, and these doctrines are regarded as too essential to the structure of the Christian faith to admit of any weakening. Such a position is false philosophically, as it involves a reasoning from dogma to fact, instead of the contrary and only legitimate process. Nevertheless, there seems little reason to expect that this position will be overthrown, at least as far as we can yet foresee. Moreover, the admission that Moses was not the author involves, or seems to involve, the admission of a literary forgery, although no one can believe that Moses wrote the account of his own death in the 34th chapter. On the other hand, the grounds for believing in the comparatively late origin of this book are such as only scholars of great attainments can appreciate or understand. Therefore the position of the question now is, and probably for a long time to come will be, that the opinion which enjoys ecclesiastical sanction is the traditional opinion of the Mosaic authorship, while the scholars (with very few exceptions, and those of inferior authority) are firmly convinced that Deuteronomy was written at a time long after that of Moses, and by an unknown hand. The grounds on which the latter opinion is based are critical and historical. The former are, in the briefest statement, these: (a) The language of the book. It is marked by archaisms such as are peculiar to the other books of the Pentateuch, but these are found side by side with peculiarities of the late language, especially those which mark the book of Jeremiah. It is said that this is a clear proof that the author lived in the later days of the Jewish monarchy, and either unconsciously adopted ancient forms from familiar acquaintance with the old Scriptures, or purposely affected archaic forms. (b) Its literary style. It bears the character of a codification or digest of the previous books. It is also marked by a handling of the ordinances of Moses, in the spirit of their principles, but with the freedom of one who had thoroughly studied them, and digested them, and now purposed to codify and arrange them in a more practical and available form. (c) It presents, however, certain variations from the other books of the Pentateuch, always in the sense of making the ordinances more flexible and of freer application, as it were to a higher civilization and a more complicated society. (d) It contemplates a state of things in which the nation is living a settled and ordered life, under a king, face to face with neighbors, not like the Canaanites, but powerful and large enough, if victorious, to swallow up Israel in captivity. (e) It is too long to be delivered as a speech, as it is represented.The historical arguments are these: (a) Deuteronomy ordains worship at one central sanctuary, a thing which was not regarded as important until after the time of Solomon, but which, from the time of Josiah on, became a fixed and fundamental doctrine of the Hebrew religion. (b) The spirit of the book of Deuteronomy is that which marked Josiahs reformation and the preaching of the later prophets. It controlled the ultimate development of the Jewish religion after the captivity.All these arguments meet with answers from the opposite school, the weight of which depends on the philosophical or dogmatic prepossessions of the persons who are called upon to weigh them. They are only mentioned here to show in general and in brief what is the character of the grounds on which critical science has based the belief that Deuteronomy was not written by or in the time of Moses. They are independent and critical throughout. To estimate them requires close knowledge of the Hebrew language and history, a knowledge which goes beyond grammar and dictionary, and involves philosophical insight, and critical sagacity and skill. Certainly it devolves upon all who are charged with the study of the Scriptures to give to the subject a candid and unprejudiced consideration, in order that the truth, on whichever side it may lie, may be established. There is not a subject on which the tyro in biblical learning may more easily fall into rash error, nor one upon which those who cannot, or will not, enter upon the tedious investigation which is involved ought more carefully to refrain from passing a dogmatical judgment.
Strictly speaking, this question lies aside from our present occupation. In commenting on the 23d chapter of the 2d book of Kings, and noticing the bearing of the facts which it records upon the development of the plan of redemption (see Preface), we have only to notice the effect produced by the discovery of the book of the Law. But it is asserted by some that this book was not the same, nor a mere copy of any, which had existed before, but a revision of the former records, with an addition consisting of a repetition and codification of the ancient ordinances. They assert that this new work was an extension and re-application of the legislation of Moses, which was especially adapted to the time of Josiah, and that herein lie the grounds of its great and peculiar influence. If such an assertion be true, and if the peculiar character of this new revision, as compared with the ancient records, was a new and broader apprehension of the spirit of the Mosaic legislation, and if this new spirit gave to that legislation a new impetus which made it the controlling principle in the subsequent development of the Jewish religion, then certainly it was a most important event in the development of the history of redemption. In fact, if this assertion be true, the composition of the book of Deuteronomy was the most important incident in the history of the Israelites after the time of Moses. Hence the importance of studying the question involved in the most thorough manner, by its proper evidence, with all the light which history or criticism can throw upon it.
Our present chapter bears upon it in so far as we discern in the reformation of Josiah a peculiar character, as compared, for instance, with that of Joash, or that of Hezekiah, and in so far as these peculiar features of this reformation are traceable to Deuteronomy as distinguished from the other books of the Pentateuch. On this point we observe that this book of the Law produced a profound sensation. It brought to the kings notice things which he had never heard or known of, and which, therefore, were not popularly known of, as parts of the Law of the Lord, although something was certainly known under that name. It is also said that the thing in the new book which especially attracted his attention, and stirred him to the action which he took, was the threats or denunciations which it contained (cf. Deuteronomy 28 especially Deu 28:25 and Deu 28:64). But these only occur in the book of Deuteronomy. When we read the description of future and possible degeneracy under the kingdom, and the threats of captivity, &c., which are contained in the book of Deuteronomy, and compare them with the state of things under Josiah, when the northern kingdom had already disappeared in Assyrian exile, we cannot wonder at the effect produced on the kings mind. He saw himself and his nation in this description as in a mirror.We also notice particular expressions: Turned neither to the right hand nor to the left, as the description of a perfect king (cf. Deu 5:32; Deu 17:11; Deu 17:20; Deu 28:14); the burning of idolatrous images and utensils (ver 4. cf. Deu 7:25; Deu 12:3); With all his heart (2Ki 23:25. cf. Deu 6:5); the death penalty for idolatry (2Ki 23:20. cf. Deu 17:2-5). The fact that, from this time on, the Law played a far more important part in forming and guiding the faith and practice of the Jews than ever before is indisputable. The author describes its influence above. Whether we can discern in the further developments the peculiar effect of the book of Deuteronomy, so far as that book differs in character from the other books of the Old Testament, or not, is a question which must be left to the study of the passages and books from which it may appear.W. G. S.]
4. The prophetess Huldah, who is mentioned only here, offers a very remarkable proof that prophecy, as a free gift of the divine spirit, was not confined to a particular sex, and that God imparts the gifts of his spirit, without respect to human divisions and classifications, to whomsoever He will, according to the free determination of His holy love. The people were to recognize the truth, although, it might be, in imperfect measure, that the time would come when there would be a general pouring out of the spirit upon it, Joe 3:1 sq. (Havernick on Eze 13:17.) Besides Huldah there are two women mentioned in the Old Testament who are designated as prophetesses, Miriam (Exo 15:20), and Deborah (Jdg 4:4). But she was a in another and fuller sense than they. What they did and said was produced in a state of ecstasy; they did not prophesy in the narrower and stricter sense of the word, i.e., they were not instruments by means of which God made known His will and purpose to those who asked it. She solemnly and expressly pronounces her oracle as the word of Jehovah (2Ki 22:16; 2Ki 22:18 : Thus saith the Lord), and she uses the manner and form of speech of the true and great prophets. The same or similar fact is not true of any other woman. She stands alone in the history of the old covenant, and it is very significant that just at this point, where the entire future of the people and its grandest and highest interests are at stake, the Lord makes use of a weak and humble instrument to bring about the execution of His purpose. Huldah cannot, therefore, be at all brought into comparison with the witch of Endor (1Sa 28:7), or with the prophetesses of whom Ezek. speaks (2Ki 13:17). The wife of Isaiah is also called (Isa 8:3), but in an altogether different sense, viz., as wife of the prophet and mother of the prophet-sons. Finally Noadiah is designated (Neh 6:14) as a false prophetess. The rabbis arbitrarily fix the number of prophetesses in the Old Testament at seven (Seder Olam 21). Their statements in regard to Huldah, as, for instance, that an honor was shown her after her death which was not shown to anybody else not of the house of David, namely, to be buried inside of the walls of Jerusalem, belong purely to tradition, it is true, but they show in what high esteem she stood (cf. Witsius, De Prophetissis in the Miscell. Sacr. I. p. 288).
5. The abolition of idolatry and of the illegitimate Jehovah-worship under Josiah is distinguished from every earlier attempt of the kind, even from that under Hezekiah, by the fact that it was far more thorough. It extended not only to the kingdom of Judah but also to the former kingdom of Israel, not only to the public but also to the private life of the people. The evil was everywhere to be torn out, roots and all. Nothing which could perpetuate the memory of heathen, or of illegitimate Jehovah-worship remained standing. All the places of worship, all the images, all the utensils, were not only destroyed but also defiled; even the ashes were thrown into the river at an unclean place that they might be borne away forever. The idol-priests themselves were slain, and the bones of those who were already dead were taken out of the graves and burned. The priests of Jehovah who had performed their functions upon the heights were deposed from their office and dignity, and were not allowed to sacrifice any more at the altar of Jehovah. This reformation has been charged with violence, and this has been offered as the explanation of the fact that it was so short-lived. So Ewald: This attempt at reformation bears the character of violence in all its details of which we have any knowledge. The evil results of such violent conduct in religious and civil affairs soon showed themselves, and all falling together in an accumulated evil produced a discord and confusion which could not be smoothed over, &c. To this Niemeyer (Charakt. d. Bib. V. s. 100) answers: In the case of such corruption which had already eaten into the vitals of the State, and, above all, in the face of such unnatural customs as were connected with it, let any one say what he will about the compulsion of conscience and the harshness of compelling a man to adopt a religion which he does not choose, I believe that it was a political right and duty to eradicate the evil, if indeed it was any longer possible to eradicate it. I will not say that the mass of men generally goes whither it is led, and that there is no instruction or improvement possible for them but that which is based upon authority and belief, so that better leaders and a more reasonable authority are a gain at all times. I will only reply to those who charge Josiah with cruelty and tyranny, in putting the priests of Baal to death, that those who should preach murder as a religious duty, and as an exercise pleasing to God, would not be left unpunished in any enlightened State. Josiah, therefore, when he put an end to these abominable sacrifices of innocence, for vengeance for which mankind seemed to stretch forth its hands to him, did no more than the kindest ruler would have considered it his duty to do. Hess also well remarks (Gesch. d. Knige, II. ss. 236 and 238): To allow them [the priests of Baal] to live would be to nourish seducers for the people, and to transgress the law to which a new oath of allegiance had just been taken, for this demanded that those who introduced idolatry should be exterminated. Josiahs fundamental principle was that a half-way eradication of idolatry would be no better than no attempt at all. If anything of this kind had been permitted to remain, the door would have been left open for the evil sooner or later to return. The idolatrous disposition and tendency took advantage of the slightest circumstance, and seized upon the slightest trace of former idolatry, to once more gain a footing. We should like to know how Josiah should have undertaken to get rid of the harlots and male prostitutes who had settled themselves in the very forecourt of the sanctuary, and there carried on their shameful occupations, or to abolish the horrible and abominable rites of Moloch, with their child-sacrifices and licentiousness. That would never have been possible in the way of kindness, as we see from the attempts of the prophets. When was a reformation ever accomplished, when corruption had reached such a depth, without violence? Even Luther, who publicly burned the popish law-books, cannot be acquitted of it; and how would the reformation of the 16th century have come to pass if no violence had been used against the corruptions which had affected not only religious, but also moral and social order, and if those corruptions had been treated only by kind and mild means? Nothing is more mistaken than to criticise and estimate antiquity from the standpoint of modern humanity and religious freedom. Even the Lord Jesus Christ did not pronounce a discourse to those who had made the house of God a den of thieves (Mat 21:13); he made a whip and scourged them out of the temple (Joh 2:15). That also was violence. It is nowhere hinted that Josiah forced the people to accept the Jehovah-religion against their conviction. He only put an end by violence to the heathen usages and licentious abuses, and this he did not do until after he had collected the people, made them acquainted with the Law-book, and received their assent to it. The Israelitish monarchy was not instituted to introduce religious liberty; on the contrary, it was its first and highest duty to sustain the fundamental law of Israel (Deu 17:18-19; 1Ki 2:3). To use the physical force which it possessed in the service of this law was its right and its duty.
[Let us endeavor to analyze the circumstances, and the principles which are here at stake, and to arrive at a sharper and firmer definition of our position in regard to them. What deserves distinctly and permanently to be borne in mind is this: if mild measures would not have availed to accomplish the desired object of rooting out idolatry and restoring the Mosaic constitution, neither did these violent measures have that effect. Josiahs reformatory efforts failed of any permanent effect, and his arrangements disappeared almost without a trace. It is very remarkable that the prophets, who might have been expected to rejoice in this undertaking, and to date from it as an epoch and a standing example of what a king of Judah ought to do, scarcely refer to it, if at all. A few pages back we had occasion to use strong terms in condemnation of a violent and bloody attempt of Manasseh to crush out the Jehovah religion and establish the worship of other gods. Violence for violence, can we approve of the means employed in the one case any more than in the other? Is the most highly cultured Christian conscience so uncertain of its own principles that it is incapable of any better verdict than this: violence when employed by the party with which we sympathize is right; when employed against that party it is wrong? We justify Josiah and we condemn the Christian persecutors and inquisitors. Are these views inconsistent, and, if not, how can we reconcile them? We have to bear in mind that it is one thing to admit excuses for a line of conduct, and another to justify it. Judaism certainly had intolerance as one of its fundamental principles. Violence in the support of the Jehovah-religion was a duty of a Jewish king. In attempting to account for and understand the conduct of Josiah, it would be as senseless to expect him to see and practise toleration as to expect him to use fire-arms against Necho. We can never carry back modern principles into ancient times and judge men by the standards of to-day. To do so argues an utter want of historical sense. On the other hand, however, when we have to judge actions which may be regarded as examples for our own conduct, we must judge them inflexibly by the highest standards of right and justice and wisdom with which we are acquainted. How else can we deny that it is right to persecute heresy by violent means when that is justified by the example of Josiah? Judged by the best standards, Josiahs reformation was unwise in its method. The king was convinced, and he carried out the reformation by his royal authority. The nation was not converted and therefore did not heartily concur in the movement. It only submitted to what was imposed. Hence this reformation passed without fruit, as it was without root in public conviction. We are sure of our modern principles of toleration, and of suffering persecution rather than inflicting it. We believe in these principles even as means of propagating our opinions. Let us be true to those principles, and not be led into disloyalty to them by our anxiety to apologize for a man who is here mentioned with praise and honor. Violence is the curse of all revolutions, political or religious. Has not our generation seen enough of them to be convinced of this at last? Do we not look on during political convulsions with anxiety to see whether the cause with which we sympathize will succeed in keeping clear of this curse? Is it not the highest praise which we can impart to a revolution, and our strongest reason to trust in the permanence of its results, that it was peaceful? The Protestant Reformation was indeed violent, but it was weak just in so far as it was violent, and the bitter fruits of the violence which attended it follow us yet in the bitter partisan hatred which marks the divisions of the Church of Christ. The most successful reformation the world has ever seen was the one our Lord brought abouthow?by falling the victim of violence, and by putting the means of force and authority utterly away from himself. Josiahs reformation is not an example for us. Its failure is a warning. We have not to justify the method of it. We cannot condemn the man, for his intentions and motives were the nest, but we cannot approve of or imitate the method of action. Its failure warns us that no reformation can be genuine which is imposed by authority, or which rests on anything but a converted heart, and that all the plausible justifications of violence which may be invented are delusions. See further the bracketed notes in the next section.W. G. S.]
6. Josiahs measures aimed at a thorough reformation of the kingdom. This king, who sought the Lord in his early youth, turned neither to the right hand nor to the left, and had devoted himself to the Lord with all his heart and all his might (2Ki 22:2; 2Ki 23:25; 2Ch 34:2-3), did not aim merely at the extirpation of idolatry and the external observance of all the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, but at the conversion of his entire people to the Lord, and at the renewal of their religious as well as of their moral and political life (see the passage from Josephus under 2). In spite of all the energy and severity with which he sought to accomplish this, he nevertheless failed. He succeeded in suppressing all public forms of idolatry, and in maintaining the Jehovah-worship in its integrity as long as he lived, but a real and sincere conversion was no longer to be hoped for. The nation had, since the time of Manasseh, advanced so far in the path of corruption that a halt was no longer possible. Apostasy from the living God had gained too strong a hold in all classes, among the rich and great, and even among the priests. It had contaminated all and had corrupted all the relations of life. Judah was in a worse state than any which even Israel had ever been in. The Jehovah-worship which had been reintroduced became a mere external ceremonial worship, and finally degenerated into hypocrisy and pretended righteousness. This is clear from the writings of the contemporary prophets, Jeremiah and Zephaniah (Jer 3:6 sq.; Zep 3:1 sq.). The State seemed to arise once more, but it was only like the last flicker of an expiring fire. The internal corruption was so great that the new and good religious order seemed to be only produced by a kind of enchantment. All the props and supports on which it rested broke in pieces when the king, whose early death seemed like an inexplicable dispensation of Providence, closed his eyes (Vaihinger in Herzogs Real-Encyc. VII. s. 36). Only the severest chastisements of Providence could avail here, and they were not long in falling. Ewald presents the matter somewhat differently (l. c., s. 700 sq.), and, as usual, Eisenlohr follows him. He finds the grounds of the failure of Josiahs reformation not so much in the irreformability of the people as in the character of the reform itself. In the first place he says that it was the spirit of violence which had from the beginning characterized the Jewish nation and which was now reawakened, which necessarily impaired his [Josiahs] work, inasmuch as it might do away for a time with the evils, but could not permanently stop up their sources The true religion could only impair its own good effect and progress, if it clung, at this late and changed time, to the narrowness which marked its youth. Since such violence had been used in rooting out all which was heathenish, the reconstruction of all which was peculiar in the Jehovah religion must be carried out in the same spirit. The first new Passover served as a sign of the severity with which the regulations of the Jehovah-worship were hereafter to be observed. Then again a new series of evils was developed from the circumstance that a book, especially such an imperfect Law-book and history as the Pentateuch, was made the fundamental law of the nation; first of all, that evil which naturally arises where a sacred document is made the basis of all public and social life, viz., a puffed-up book-wisdom, and a hypocritical and false learning in the Scriptures. Finally, instead of reconciling the parties which had existed ever since the time of Solomon, he thinks that Josiahs violent reformation intensified the party divisions and sharpened the party lines. The party which may be called the deuteronomical, or stricter, party demanded unsparing severity in rooting out heathenism; the heathen, or more liberal, party, on the other hand, not only allowed the worship of heathen gods, but also took pleasure in the low standard of morality which attended idolatry. While, therefore, the strict party demanded a policy which, in fact, was no longer adapted to the circumstances of the country, and sought to carry it out by force, the liberal party fell short of the standard of morality which the times required. But though the latter no less than the former relied upon physical force, it nevertheless had the entire tendency of the time towards a wider and freer development in its favor. It therefore gained the upper hand immediately after Josiahs unfortunate death, so that the whole kingdom fell into a complete confusion which nothing but greater force than either party had at its disposal could put a stop to. Eisenlohr also, speaking from a similar point of view (Das Volk Israel II. s. 354 sq.), says: The entire reformation degenerates into a slavish restoration, a seeking out again and dragging forth of all the old institutions and ordinances of the kingdom if possible, in a still more stiff and immobile form, so that they produced the strongest reaction under the existing imperfect organization of the religious life. The State-religion exerted its utmost powers to effect a renewal of the national vigor, and a preservation of the national identity, by setting the theocratic law and constitution in operation in its fullest, and most rigid, and most peculiar, construction, but hardly had the State-religion begun, under royal protection, to forcibly control anew the public life, before a cry of sharp complaint began to arise against the evils which are the inseparable concomitants of every privileged form of religion,hypocrisy, and external or pretended piety. To this must be added that a sacred codex became the standard of all public life. The effects of the entire method in which the reformation exerted its influence on the national life, and sought to accomplish its ends, were, for the moment , all the more disastrous (!) inasmuch as its internal principle was violence and its external policy was bigoted exclusiveness. It needs no proof to show that this entire manner of conceiving of the circumstances stands in the most pronounced antagonism to the biblical representation. The Scriptures contain no hint of all these reasons why Josiahs reformation failed, and even became finally disastrous, so that it brought about the downfall of the kingdom. Neither the historical books nor the discourses of the contemporary prophets contain a word of disapproval of the reformation; they offer only one reason for the failure of it, and that is the total corruption and perversity which had grown up since the time of Manasseh (2Ki 22:16-20; 2Ki 23:26-27; Jer 15:1-4.
[No reason at all is specifically assigned anywhere why this reformation failed. Its failure is not spoken of, recognized, or accounted for. Manassehs sins are referred to as the explanation of the judgments which fell upon Judah. But when we speak of the national corruption which had been spreading since the time of Manasseh as the ground of the failure of Josiahs reformation, it is allowable to go farther and ask: In what did this corruption consist? What were the especial forms of vice which were prevalent in Judah? What were the tendencies which the reformation had to encounter? What were the faults of national character which were in play? What were the selfish interests which the reformation threatened? These all make up what we call in a word national corruption and decay. It is only by such analysis that we are able to present to our minds the state of things in detail and to comprehend the situation. Corruption is only a general word which serves to cover the state of things, to conceal it from us, and to keep us from penetrating to a satisfactory conception of it. It is not difficult to gather from the documents, historical and prophetical, answers to the above questions. When we examine the subject we find that Ewalds picture of the parties and their characteristics, of the tendencies in play, &c., is exceedingly faithful. It would certainly be wrong if any one should say that the violence of Josiahs reformation caused the subsequent decay and downfall of Judah. Also the effect of using a document as ultimate authority is exaggerated by Eisenlohr, if not by Ewald. The pedantry of the rabbis, and the ritual righteousness of the Pharisees, did not arise for centuries. But this much is certainly true: The corruption had advanced so far that perhaps all hope of converting the nation by moral and religious appeals was vain. Even, however, if such were the case, a violent reformation, imposed on royal authority, could do no good, but only additional harm. It did not stem the tide of corruption, while it embittered parties and left deep-rooted hatred and thirst for revenge.Stanley gives tables of the parties which existed in Jerusalem, at this time, in his Lectures on the Jewish Church, II. 565 and 566.W. G. S.]
In the view above quoted [Ewalds and Eisenlohrs] it is really Josiah who, on account of his mistaken zeal and unwise measures, was to blame for the ruin of the kingdom, but the text says of him that there was no king like him before him, who so completely clung to the Lord with all his heart (2Ki 23:25), and thereby presents him as the one who, among all the kings after David, was just what a king of Israel ought to be. But the charge is entirely incomprehensible that he did not allow to the liberal party the worship of all gods together with their baser standard of morality, and that a sacred book became the standard of all public life. Not to speak of anything else, it is exactly for this reason that he received the promise that he should not himself live to see the desolation, but should be gathered to his fathers in peace (2Ki 22:19-20). [Josiah is not charged with any fault in not having done this. It is said that the measures which he took did not tend to correct or convert these misguided men, but only to compel them to submit to force, and that thus their opinions were not altered, while their feelings were embittered. As soon as they dared, they returned, with renewed zeal, to the practice of their opinions, and also sought revenge for the oppressive persecution which they (as they thought) had suffered.W. G. S.] The charge against Josiah of having made a sacred book the standard involves an insult to the fundamental Protestant doctrine of the authority of the Bible as the sole standard of religion and morality, and, therefore, also of civil life. We see here whither we are led when we allow ourselves to be guided, in the interpretation of the Old Testament, by the doctrines of modern liberalism.
[The idea here presented of the danger which attends the use of a written document as the standard of religious truth and of morality is not a liberalistic doctrine. It is a truth which deserves solemn attention, most of all from Protestants. Those who believe in the authority of the Bible, and teach it and use it continually, are the very ones who need to have always distinctly in mind the dangers which inhere in the use of a literary standard, in order that they may guard against them. In the use of any such standard the interpretation of it becomes a matter of transcendent importance. Witness the rabbis, and the scribes and lawyers of Gospel times, that the danger of a class of men growing up who will hold knowledge of the Scriptures to be their privilege, who will develop an artificial and radically false and vicious system of interpretation, and who will overburden the Word with fancies and fables and arbitrary inventions, is no imaginary one. Witness the scholastics of the middle ages that the text of Scripture may be made a stem on which to hang frivolities and casuistical toys without end. Witness the papacy that the interpretation may come to be regarded as a matter so all-important that the Scriptures, except as interpreted, may be reserved as an exclusive possession of a privileged class. The danger of hypocritical book-wisdom and esoteric exegetical knowledge is one to be guarded against continually.
With regard to the general estimate of Josiahs reformation we may sum up as follows: The attempt, on the part of the king, to arrest the dissolution and corruption of the nation by bringing it back to sincere devotion to the national religion is worthy of our most hearty admiration. The source of his early inclination towards the Jehovah-religion we cannot trace. It is clear that a violent persecution like that of Manasseh must have produced terror, bitterness, stubborn though concealed opposition, and a relentless purpose, on the part of those who had all the law and traditions of their nation, together with patriotism, on their side, and who could compare with pride the moral purity of their religion with those abominations of heathenism which were shocking and abhorrent to the simplest instincts of human nature, to repay their persecutors at the first opportunity. Where those abominations were the only religions observances taught, education might avail to make them pass without protest; but where there was any, even a slight knowledge of a purer religion and a better morality, the protest could never entirely die out. The Jehovah-religion was, as compared with heathen religions, austere. It warred against the base passions of men and the vices which they produce. Heathenism seized upon those passions as its means. It fostered them in the name of developing what was natural, and therefore must be right. Modern civilized heathenism does just the same thing. Heathenism therefore seemed to represent enjoyment of life, while the Jehovah-religion seemed to repress pleasure. It is remarkable that a boy-king should have chosen the latter. We are ignorant of the persons or considerations which may have influenced his choice. There is an undeniable resemblance in features between the revolutions of Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah, which seems to point to a relationship between them. A chain of reprisals seems to have been started, and each successive revolution or reformation was more radical, more bloody, and more unsparing than the last. The newly discovered book, with its commands and threats, gave the king a stimulus to undo all that Manasseh had done, to put a stop to the abominations which the latter had firmly established, to reintroduce the ancient national cultus in its perfection, to requite the heathen party for its cruelty, to avenge, the slaughtered servants of Jehovah, to foster those religious observances and moral principles which might regenerate the State, and to establish the new order of things securely. The thought of vengeance he may not have had, but it would be most natural, and not by any means shocking to the mind of a man of his generation. His purpose then was perfectly laudable and good. The means which he adopted for carrying it out were the only ones which could suggest themselves to him. They were the same in kind as Hezekiah had adopted, and as Manasseh had employed on behalf of the contrary interest, only he went still farther. No Jewish king would ever have thought of employing other means. It is idle to sit in judgment on him. His example in this, however, cannot form any rule for an age which enjoys a higher enlightenment, and a truer wisdom. As for the evil effects of the violence employed by Josiah, they may be limited to the embittering of those party divisions which seem to have hastened this fall of Jerusalem as they did the one under Titus. The great reason for his failure, however, was that the means which he employed encountered too strong opposition in the popular feelings and tendencies of the nation at the time. He was working up hill, so to speak, in trying to bring back the nation to a more severe religion, a sterner morality, and a purer patriotism. They preferred their luxury, and pleasure, and vice. He had only a small party with him, and the reformation which was accomplished by royal authority controlling the physical force of the realm, which was conducted in the interest of a written code which could not have been thoroughly understood and appreciated, and which did not have the hearty co-operation of the body of the people, failed when the king fell upon whose will it mainly depended. The death of Josiah was a disappointment and discouragement to the Jehovah party far beyond the mere loss of their protector and friend. They no doubt had no little superstitious confidence in the favor of heaven for the pious prince, and this was struck to the ground when the life on which all the prosperity of the Jehovah-worship seemed to depend was taken away, as it were by a stroke of Providence.W. G. S.]
7. Josiahs expedition against Necho, which brought about his early death, fell in the year 608 b. c., fifteen years after he accomplished his reformation in Judah and in the former territory of Israel. He must, therefore, have gained possession of the latter, or, at least, must have regarded himself as ruler of it. Necho, therefore, had no right to pass through this territory without paying any respect to Josiahs authority, even though, as he asserted (2Ch 35:21), he had no hostile intention towards the king of Judah. Josiah, therefore, undertook to intercept him, as Josephus says (Antiq. x. 5, 1): , and, in spite of Nechos assurance that he meant him no harm, Josiah persisted in refusing to allow him . The ground for this conduct of Josiah was not, as many have assumed, that he had already formed an alliance with Nabopolassar, the Babylonian, the new ruler of Assyria, or that he desired to secure the favor of this conqueror in the hope that he would thus make sure of being left in undisturbed possession of his kingdom, but the grounds of his conduct were very simple and close at hand. A very little reflection sufficed to see that it was all over with the independent existence of the kingdom of Judah if the Egyptians secured a foothold in the country to the North (Ewald). [Judah would thus be placed between Egypt and its outlying conquests, and of course its independence would not be long respected.] Niebuhr justly characterizes Josiahs undertaking (Gesch. Assyr. s. 364) as a thoroughly correct policy Josiah knew that, although Necho asserted that he had no hostile intention towards him, yet, if the Egyptians conquered Clo-Syria, the independence of Judah was at an end. As a true theocratic king, and as a man of warlike courage and disposition (the Sept. translate the words 2Ch 35:22 by ), he did not allow himself to be deceived by Necho. By the dispensation of Providence he fell at the very beginning of the campaign (Josephus: , ). His death was a great misfortune for the nation, but it was nevertheless honorable. It was universally lamented, especially by Jeremiah (2Ch 35:24-25). All felt what they had lost in him. The more detailed account in Chronicles gave occasion to some of the older historians to blame Josiah severely. For instance, Hess (Gesch. der Knige Jud. und Isr. II. s. 455 sq.): He was so over-hasty as to dispute the passage through the country with Necho, and collected an army at Megiddo. This was not at all necessary for the security of his own kingdom, for Necho had advanced so far without doing him any harm, and had sent an embassy expressly to assure him that he intended him no harm, but was directing his attack against the mighty monarchy to the East, being stimulated thereto by a divine calling. To thus attack the Egyptian without the counsel of a prophet, or any sign of divine direction, was not trust in God, but in his own power. It was, in any case, unwise to offend a ruler who was mighty enough to measure forces with the Babylonian power. It is incorrectly assumed in this view that the God, whose approval Necho claimed, was Jehovah, the God of Israel. It is nowhere asserted that Josiah made this expedition without having consulted the true oracle of Jehovah, that is, without the counsel of a prophet. To judge from what Jeremiah says about Egypt in his forty-sixth chapter, he would hardly have dissuaded the king from this undertaking. We see how far it was from the intention of the chronicler, in his fuller account, to hint at anything unfavorable to Josiah, for he is the very one who makes especial mention of the universal grief for the death of Josiah, of the songs of lamentation which the singers sang for him until this day, and of the lament which Jeremiah wrote. We cannot conceive that all this would have been so if he had entered rashly into the war, contrary to the advice of the prophet, and had thus plunged the nation into misfortune. Von Gerlach very mistakenly infers from the account in Chronicles that Josiah, in spite of his sincere piety, belonged to the number of weak and inefficient and imprudent rulers who closed the long series of kings of the house of David. In that case how could Jesus Sirach, who certainly was not ignorant of what is there narrated, say of him, centuries later (Jer 49:1), that the memory of him was like costly incense, and sweet as honey in the mouth of all. [On the historical connections of this event see the Supplem. Note at the end of the next Exeget. section, below.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Ki 22:1-2. The panegyric of Josiah, Sir 49:1-2. His name is like costly incense and sweet as honey; for as he walked, &c. Although his father walked in evil ways, yet Josiah did not take him as an example, but that one of his ancestors who was a man after Gods own heart. He sought the Lord while he was yet a boy, and increased in knowledge and in favor as he grew in stature (2Ch 34:3; Luk 2:40; Luk 2:52). Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way, &c., Psa 119:9. Starke: Beginners in the Christian life must choose good examples and follow them faithfully (Php 3:17; 1Jn 2:14). He turned not either to the right hand (like the later Pharisees), nor to the left (like the Sadducees); although he lived in a corrupt age, he fell neither into superstition nor unbelief. The way which loads to life is narrow, and it is well to have a firm heart so as not to totter on either side.Wrt. Summ.: We are seduced on the right by hypocrisy, and on the left by epicureanism, but the word of God says: This is the way, walk therein, and turn neither to the right hand nor to the left (Isa 30:21).Cramer: We have in Josiah the mirror of a true ruler. (1) Such an one is given by God, out of pure grace, as a blessing to the country. (2) Such an one is bound, not only to protect the life and property of his subjects, and to preserve peace and order, but also to care for the Church and Kingdom of God.Wrt. Summ.: We ought not to despair of the children of the godless and to give them up; they may become, as in this case Josiah did, the most pious, through whom God accomplishes wonders. Good instruction and discipline may, by the blessing of God, correct much evil which such children have inherited or learned from their parents.
2Ki 22:3-10. The Discovery of the Law-Book. (a) The occasion of it, 2Ki 22:3-7. (b) The significance of it, 2Ki 22:8-10.
2Ki 22:3-7. The Restoration of the House of God. (a) The king undertakes it impelled by pure love to the Lord (Psa 26:8). (b) The people of all the provinces willingly contribute to it (2Ch 34:9). (c) The laborers work without reckoning, with fidelity.See the homiletical hints on 2Ki 12:5-17.Josiah was zealously interested in the repair of the temple before the law-book was found and he had become acquainted with it. We have not only the old law-book but also the entire word of God; each one may hear and read it, nevertheless the churches are often allowed to fall into decay, and it is only at the last moment that any one thinks of spending money and time upon them.Berl. Bibel: All are here earnestly interested in the work upon the house of God. Would that our zeal might be aroused for the same interests! that we might not rest where we should work, nor work where we should rest; not to tear down where we ought to build, nor to build where we ought to tear down, but to carry on the work of the Lord orderly and properly.Cramer: The physical temples are useless, if the spiritual temples are not properly cared for.
2Ki 22:8-10. What is the use of building and arranging and adorning churches, if the word of God is wanting in them, and instead of being a light to shine, and bread to feed, is hid under a bushel or locked up, and concealed by the ordinances of men and their own self-invented wisdom?Pfaff. Bib.: Wretched times when the law-book has to be concealed; happy times when it is rediscovered. How happy are we who have the word of God in such abundance! Wrt. Summ.: As in the times of Josiah the law-book had been pushed aside and become lost by the carelessness of the priests, so that scarcely any one knew anything about the law of God, so, before the time of Luther, under the papacy, the Holy Bible lay, as it were, in the dust, and, although it was not entirely lost, yet there were very many, not only among the common people, but also among the ecclesiastics and men of rank, who had never seen and read the Bible, until God called Luther and others, through whose faithful services the Bible, the holy and divine Scripture, was once more brought forth, brought into the light, and given to every man, in all languages, to read for himself; which goodness of God we still recognize and praise, and read, on account of it, more diligently in the Bible, and exercise ourselves in the word of God day and night, that we may obey the words of the Apostle Paul (Col 3:16): Let the words of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom.There is indeed nowadays scarcely a family, in countries where evangelical religion is professed, in which a Bible is not to be found, but it is often laid aside, and covered with dust, or it is regarded as an old book which is no longer adapted to our times. What higher praise, however, could be given to a family than to say: I found therein the Word of God, not hid under a bushel, but set on a candlestick, so that it gave light to the whole house (Mat 5:15).
2Ki 22:9-10. Nothing which is undertaken with zeal and faith to glorify the name of God ever remains unblessed. Shaphan brought to his master the greatest and best treasure possible out of the temple which was falling to ruin.The Book of books is there to be read by every one, king or beggar. The minister was not ashamed to read it before the king, and the king was not ashamed to listen with the utmost attention.
2Ki 22:11-14. The Impression which the Divine Word made on the King when he had heard it. (a) He rent his garments (sorrow and grief on account of the transgressions of the people, horror in view of the divine judgments. Pfaff. Bib.: How profitable it is to have such respect for the word of God and to be terrified at His threats! If the word of God had such effect upon us, how much better it would be for us). (b) He asks how the threatened judgments may be averted. (Wherever the word penetrates to the heart, there the question always follows: What shall I do? Act 2:37. Felix trembled, but he said: When I have a more convenient season, &c., Act 24:25.)Wrt. Summ.: When we hear of Gods threats against sin, let us not allow them to pass as idle winds, but take them to heart and seek the means of grace. We must only ask of the Apostles and Prophets who wrote as they were impelled by the Holy Ghost. God speaks with us through their words. His answer is: Repent, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and forsake sin.
2Ki 22:14. See Histor. and Eth. 4.Starke: True fear of God is humble and honors the gifts of God wherever it finds them, but in itself least of all.
2Ki 22:15-20. The Oracle of the Prophetess a Threat for the people (2Ki 22:15-17), and a Promise for the King (2Ki 22:18-20).The Lord will bring temporal misfortune upon the city which despises and scorns His law; what will He do to that which rejects His Gospel? 2Ti 1:8-9.Those who humble themselves at the word of the law will come to the grave in peace. The just are taken away before the calamity comes (Isa 57:1). If the Lord takes thee early away from the earth, submit to His will and say: Lord, let now thy servant depart in peace, as Thou hast said (Luk 2:29).
2Ki 23:1-25. Josiahs Great Work of Reformation. (a) He renews the covenant on the basis of the newly discovered law-book, 2Ki 23:1-3. (b) He puts an end pitilessly to all idolatrous worship in the kingdom, 2Ki 23:4-20. (c) He restores the legitimate worship with the celebration of the Passover, 2Ki 23:21-25.Every true reformation must proceed from the word of God, and have that as its basis; then it is strong, not only in destroying and denying, but also in building up and restoring (Luther and the reformers).
2Ki 23:1-3. The king collects the entire people and lays the law-book before them; not until after they have approved does he begin the work. The civil and spiritual authorities ought not to proceed violently and in self-will in matters of the highest importance for Church and State, nor to force the consciences of the people. They ought to secure the assent of the latter. The entire people, small and great, learned and unlearned, ought to be made acquainted with the word of God, so that no one can plead ignorance as an excuse. To deny to the people the right to read the Word of God is not to reform, but to destroy. Kyburz: Josiah caused the light which he had received to shine to all; so do ye also. We ought not to enjoy any treasure which we discover without sharing it with others.The people joined in the covenant outwardly but not heartily, therefore it had no permanence. How often now a whole congregation promises obedience to God and does not keep it. Do not expect hearty conversion everywhere where you hear assent to the word of God (Mat 7:21; Isa 29:13).
2Ki 23:4-20. Wrt. Summ.: Here we may see that when Gods word is laid aside people fall into all kinds of vice. So it was under the papacy. If we observe the word of God we shall be saved from sin and error.Although the civil authorities ought to apply no force to conscience, yet they ought to punish murder and licentiousness, no matter what may be the pretence under which they are committed. The more severely and more pitilessly they do this, the more honor they deserve.Weeds grow most rapidly; they can only be destroyed by being pulled up by the roots.The abominations which took root in Israel were a proof of what St. Paul says, Rom 1:21-28. In times of corruption, and against inveterate evils, mild measures are of no avail, but only the utmost severity, which has no respect of persons. Ecclesiastics who, instead of being pastors of the people, become their seducers, are doubly worthy of punishment, and ought to be removed without mercy.
2Ki 23:16-17. Starke: Divine prophecies will certainly be fulfilled at last, though the fulfilment may be delayed so long that it seems as if it would never follow (1Ki 13:2; 1Ki 13:31).
2Ki 23:18. The Same: The bones of departed saints ought to be left in their graves and not to be carried about or displayed.
2Ki 23:21-24. The building up of a new life must follow upon the eradication of sin. The Passover cannot be celebrated until all the old leaven is removed. The Passover was the feast with which each new year began; we also have a passover or Easter lamb (1Co 5:7-8).The festivals and fasts are the frame-work of the common life of the congregation; where they are neglected this life is decaying. If Israel had kept up the celebration of its appointed feasts, it would never have fallen so low.
2Ki 23:25-27. Why did the Lord not return from His anger? Not because Josiahs efforts were not pure and sincere (on the contrary, they proceeded from pure zeal, and perfect love, and the best intention), but because the people were not converted with their king. They only assented externally and in form; in their hearts they were obstinate and perverse (Jer 25:3-7).Roos: Jeremiah seems to have fallen on a good time with his warnings and exhortations to repentance, but the contents of his books show that such was not the case. This should be a warning to those who look to the authorities for the chief power to convert men, and do not wish to act without them.Luther: Before God inflicts a severe judgment he always grants a great illumination. Therefore a great judgment will fall upon those who now neglect the Gospel.
2Ki 23:29-30. See 2 Chronicles 35. The early death of the king was no punishment for him, for he was thus gathered in peace to his fathers, but it was a chastisement for his unrepentant people, who now lamented him and saw, when it was too late, what noble purposes he had had in their behalf.
Footnotes:
[1]2Ki 22:5.The chetib, , is altogether to be preferred to the keri, Bhr. [The E. V. follows the keri. Bttchers explanation is to be preferred. He retains the chetib and punctuates , explaining the suffix as an irregularity in gender. Cf. Gramm., note on 2Ki 16:17, and Bttcher 877, e.W. G. S.]
[2]2Ki 22:5.[Here also the chetib, , is to be preferred to the keri . Cf. Jer 40:5; Jer 12:15. , in 2Ki 22:9, cannot prove the contrary.Bhr.
[3]2Ki 22:9.[They had emptied out the money from receptacles into which it had been put by the priests as it was offered from time to time by the people, and in which it was stored, so that it was found there, as the text says, literally.
[4]2Ki 22:13.[Literally, written upon, or against us.
[5]2Ki 23:3.[Literally: stood in. Probably they signified their acquiescence and participation by standing in a certain place. Hence it means joined in. So Keil, Thenius, Luther, De Wette, Bhr, Bunsen. Maurer and Gesenius take it to mean persist or persevere, which would be the modern colloquial significance of the stood to of the E. V., but is not the proper sense here.
[6]2Ki 23:4.[; the strict rule of the language would here require the imperf. consec. Other instances of laxity in the use of this form occur in late books, Jer 37:15; Eze 9:7; Eze 37:7; Eze 37:10; Dan 12:5, and in the book of Ecclesiastes. (Bttcher 982, II.)
[7]2Ki 23:5.[; that one might offer the subject is the indef. sing. French, on, Germ. man. The singular, however, is very remarkable, and the text may be incorrect. The versions all translate as if it were , for which is probably an error of the pen (Keil). Bttcher takes the imperf. consec. as a pluperfect, because it follows another plup., and compares Gen 31:34, and 1Sa 19:18.Whom the kings of Judah had appointed and [who, i.e. any one amongst them] had offered incense. This makes good sense, but the change from passive to active, and from plur. to sing, is awkward, and the grammatical principles are not clear.
[8]2Ki 23:9.[Such is the force of the imperf. They might not, i.e., they were not allowed to.
[9]2Ki 23:11.[Literally: he caused to cease i.e.., these horses of the sun had been kept as an act of worship to the sun. He took them away and put an end to the arrangement.
[10]2Ki 23:24.[, set upright, i.e., that he might introduce the institutions and customs prescribed in the law and establish them in successful operation.W. G. S.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
Josiah conveneth all Judah to the hearing of the book of the law of God, which Hilkiah had found in the temple. This chapter relates the circumstances of this solemnity. The King reneweth the covenant of the Lord, and prosecuteth the destruction of idolatry.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
There is a wonderful degree of beauty in this chapter, as well as a great degree of humble reverence manifested by Josiah upon the occasion, in thus convening all Judah to hear God’s sacred word. Josiah had been told that God’s decree for the punishment of Israel was gone forth, and could not be altered. Yet Josiah still prosecutes the service of learning himself, and causing Israel to hear and observe the law of God. Not content with causing the blessed book to be read, it should seem he read it to the people himself. Perhaps, in obedience to that precept, Deu 17:18-19 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2Ki 23
1. And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem.
2. And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the Lord. [It has been pointed out that there were not more than two or three prophets in Jerusalem at this time namely, Zephaniah, Urijah, and perhaps Jeremiah, and some critics have proposed to substitute the word “Levites” for the word “prophets.” On the other hand, it has been contended, that although the three prophets mentioned are all that can be named as belonging to the order at that time, there is no reason to doubt that Judah contained other prophets who cannot now be recalled by name. We have been reminded that schools of the prophets were as common in Judah as in Israel. A high authority has said that there were hundreds of prophets contemporary with those whose writings we have.]
3. And the king stood by [upon] a pillar, and made a [renewed the] covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their [the king spoke in his public capacity] heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant.
4. And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order [pointing to the growing dignity of the high priest], and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels [all the apparatus of worship] that were made for Baal, and for the grove, and for all the host of heaven: and he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried the ashes of them unto Beth-el.
5. And he put down [he caused to cease] the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained [quite in accordance with the proceedings of Manasseh and Amon] to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets [signs or constellations], and to all the host of heaven.
6. And he brought out the grove from the house of the Lord, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people. [Graves were regarded as unclean places.]
7. And he brake down the houses of the sodomites [self-mutilated devotees], that were by the house of the Lord, where the women [priestesses] wove hangings for the grove.
8. And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba [from the extreme north to the extreme south of the kingdom of Judah], and brake down the high places of the gates that were in the entering in of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on a man’s left hand at the gate of the city.
9. Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat of the unleavened bread among their brethren [as if disqualified from serving at the altar by a bodily blemish].
10. And he defiled Topheth [so called from a root signifying “to burn”], which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom [the name attached to the valley west and south of Jerusalem, which guards the city on these two sides like a deep moat], that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.
11. And he took away the horses [the Persians were accustomed to dedicate a chariot and horses to the sun] that the kings of Judah [Manasseh and Amon certainly] had given to the sun, at the entering in of the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the suburbs [the expression occurs nowhere else], and burned the chariots of the sun with fire.
12. And the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord, did the king beat down, and brake them down from thence, and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron.
13. And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand [always the southern portion] of the mount of corruption [Mount Olivet], which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile.
14. And he brake in pieces the images, and cut down the groves, and filled their places with the bones of men [accounted unclean].
15. Moreover the altar that was at Beth-el, and the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, both that altar and the high place he brake down, and burned the high place, and stamped it small to powder, and burned the grove.
16. And as Josiah turned himself, he spied the sepulchres that were there in the mount, and sent, and took the bones out of the sepulchres, and burned [probably by divine command, as such burning was contrary to all ordinary Jewish feelings] them upon the altar, and polluted it, according to the word of the Lord which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these words.
17. Then he said, What title [pillar] is that that I see? And the men of the city told him, It is the sepulchre of the man of God, which came from Judah, and proclaimed these things that thou hast done against the altar of Beth-el.
18. And he said, Let him alone; let no man move his bones. So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet that came out of Samaria.
19. And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke the Lord to anger, Josiah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he had done in Beth-el.
20. And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men’s bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem.
21. And the king commanded [here the author returns to the narrative of what was done in Josiah’s eighteenth year] all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the Lord your God, as it is written in the book of this covenant.
22. Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah [see the details in 2Ch 35:1-18 ];
23. But in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, wherein this passover was holden to the Lord in Jerusalem.
24. Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord.
25. And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him. [A panegyric not to be pushed to the letter, but to be understood in the spirit]
26. Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations [wrath is heaped upon wrath] that Manasseh had provoked him withal.
27. And the Lord said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.
28. Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? [Josiah lived thirteen years after the celebration of his great passover.]
29. In his days Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him. [In The Speaker’s Commentary we learn that Megiddo lies on the caravan route from Egypt to Damascus, the ordinary line for an army. Josiah probably took up his position here, near the point where the road over the hill debouches upon the plain, in order to assail with all his force the head of the Egyptian column as it merged from the pass into more open ground. The battle would be fought, not at the point itself, which is on a hill, but in the valley at its foot, as is noted in 2Ch 35:22 . When Necho found his way blocked by Josiah’s troops, he sent ambassadors to him, and tried to induce him to retire but as Josiah refused to move, Necho was obliged to fight. According to one rendering, the Jewish king, following an unhappy precedent that of Ahab disguised himself before entering into the battle, and like Ahab was slain by a chance arrow.]
30. And his servants carried him in a chariot dead [mortally wounded] from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own sepulchre [in the new cemetery made by Manasseh]. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz [Shallum originally] the son [not the eldest] of Josiah, and anointed him [a rite observed only where there was some irregularity in the succession], and made him king in his father’s stead.
31. Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah.
32. And he did that which was evil [Josephus calls him irreligious and of impure habits] in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done.
33. And Pharaoh-nechoh put him in bands [loaded him with chains] at Riblah in the land of Hamath, that he might not reign in Jerusalem; and put the land to a tribute [set a mulct upon the land] of an hundred talents of silver, and a talent of gold.
34. And Pharaoh-nechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father [Necho did not acknowledge that Jehoahaz had ever been king], and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there.
35. And Jehoiakim gave the silver and the gold to Pharaoh; but he taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every one according to his taxation, to give it unto Pharaoh-nechoh.
36. Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Zebudah, the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah.
37. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XVIII
THE REIGNS OF MANASSEH, AMON, AND JOSIAH
2Ki 21:1-23:30
We take up in this chapter the reigns of Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah. We saw at the close of the last chapter the complete vindication of Isaiah as a prophet, the miraculous deliverance of Judah and Jerusalem from the hand of the Assyrians by the destruction of the army, and the apparent triumph of the principles of right and of good in the kingdom of Judah, the continued prosperity of the reign of Hezekiah, and the paramount influence of the prophet Isaiah.
One would naturally expect a period of great religious revival and national prosperity to follow such a good king as Hezekiah; that he would leave an heir worthy of his name, also that Judah would now enter upon a long career of prosperity and ascendancy among the nations of the world. But we must not deceive ourselves as to the condition of the people in Judah and Jerusalem. We read in Isaiah a description of the people: “In that day did the Lord God of Hosts, call to weeping and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth: and, behold, joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine: Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we may die.” There is still an utter absence of faith in Jehovah: “And it was revealed in mine ears by the Lord of hosts. Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, said the Lord God of Israel.” We see by this that the masses of the people were still practically incorrigible in their religious deterioration. “Wherefore, the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men, therefore behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people.” These passages give a little glimpse into the inner life of the people. But the magnificent work of Isaiah and the goodness of Hezekiah have had one splendid result, viz: Judah and Jerusalem have been saved from the yoke of the Assyrians. They are now free and for many years they pay no tribute to that foreign power.
Manasseh was twelve years old when he came to the throne and his was the longest reign fifty and five years of any king of Judah. Uzziah reigned fifty-two years altogether. We would expect a good boy to be raised up in such a home as that of Hezekiah, but instead, he was just the opposite of his father in almost every respect, which shows that, perhaps, even in the palace of Jerusalem there was a taint of Baal worship and there were those who adhered to it and taught it to the young prince. The description of Manasseh’s reign is terrible. The idolatrous party attains the ascendancy almost as soon as he comes to the throne, and Manasseh begins at once to undo all the work that had been done by Isaiah and Hezekiah. There is a great revival of idolatry. We are reminded of Rev 20:1-10 , the first resurrection representing a great revival of righteousness throughout the world as if there were life from the dead, and the second resurrection the loosing of Satan ushering in a revival of evil. This is on a small scale the same thing. Notice what Manasseh did: “For he built again the high places which Hezekiah destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made an Asherah” an image representing the female deity, the worship of which was really licentiousness. He worshiped all the hosts of heaven, something apparently new among those kings. Probably this kind of worship was imported from Assyria or from Babylon, quite probably from Babylon. We recall that Ahaz imported something from Damarcus, a new style of altar. Now Manasseh imports the new system of worship of the hosts of heaven from Assyria or Babylon. He built altars in the house of Jehovah, equaling Ahaz in his desecration of that sacred place. He built altars for all the hosts of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord, “And he made his son to pass through the fire, and practiced augury, and used enchantments, and dealt with them that had familiar spirits, and with wizards” went after the fortunetellers, which is about as sure a sign of the deterioration of character as we find. It is a great offense against Almighty God to go to these people to find out his will, when he has given right ways of finding it out. “And he set the graven image of Asherah, that he made, in the house of which the Lord said to David and to Solomon his son. In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name forever.” Thus we see the idol worship re-established in Judah with its center in the Temple, and the result is: “And Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, so that they did evil more than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel.”
Next we notice the change of rulers in Assyria. Sennacherib was slain by his two sons in an insurrection that was intended to place a new monarch on the throne of Assyria. They escaped, and after five months of insurrection and revolt and disturbance Esarhaddon, another son, took his place upon the throne. We are told in one of the lists of Esarhaddon that Manasseh king of Judah paid him tribute. We are not sure just when Manasseh began to pay tribute, but in one of his western expeditions Esarhaddon must have come close to Judah and Jerusalem, and Manasseh in order to keep his throne, began to pay him regular tribute. How long he did this we are not told, but we know that Esarhaddon conquered Egypt with all the western states of Asia and made them pay tribute, and we know also that when his son succeeded him upon the throne, that was a signal for a general revolt among those nations, and it seems almost certain that Manasseh was one of those who revolted and refused to pay tribute. As a consequence Manasseh was taken captive by the king of Assyria and led away in chains to Babylon. During all this time there were some servants of God, prophets, warning him: “And the Lord spake by his servants the prophets, saying, Because Manasseh king of Judah hath done these abominations, and hath done wickedly above all that the Amorites did, which were before him and hath made Judah also to sin with his idols: therefore thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold I bring such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, and whosoever hears of it, both his ears shall tingle. And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab: and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. And I will cast off the remnant of mine inheritance, and deliver them into the hand of their enemies.” That was to be the result of Manasseh’s idolatry and wicked reign. The doom is settled, the fate of Jerusalem is inevitable. The seeds of idolatry have been sown in the people’s hearts, and so grown in their hearts and lives that they are incorrigible and salvation is impossible. It is possible for a nation to go so far into sin that God must withdraw his mercy from it; it is also possible for an individual to go so far that even the Spirit of God cannot stem the tide of evil within him.
As a result of this rebellion Manasseh is taken captive by the king of Assyria, and as a result of his captivity and imprisonment Manasseh comes to himself and repents. When he was in distress “He sought the Lord his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers and he prayed unto him.” In the Apocrypha we have that prayer. Here is a part of it: “O Lord Almighty, that art in heaven, thou God of our fathers, of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and of their righteous seed. . . . Thou, O Lord, according to thy great goodness hast promised repentance and forgiveness to them that have sinned against thee: and of thine infinite mercies hast appointed repentance unto sinners, that they may be saved. Thou therefore, O Lord, thou art the God of the just, hast not appointed repentance to the just, to Abraham, and Jacob, which have not sinned against thee. But thou hast appointed repentance unto me that am a sinner: for I have sinned above the number of the sands of the sea. My transgressions are multiplied, O Lord: my transgressions are multiplied and I am not worthy to behold and see the height of heaven for the multitude of iniquities. . . . I have provoked thy wrath and done that which is evil in thy sight. I did not thy will neither kept I thy commandments. . . . I bow the knee of mine heart, beseeching thee of grace; I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge mine iniquities: but, I humbly beseech thee, forgive me, O Lord, forgive me, and destroy me not with mine iniquities.” That prayer may or may not be genuine, but it certainly is a penitent one. It is not an inspired prayer. Manasseh was restored to his kingdom on his pledge of fealty and payment of tribute to the Assyrian monarch, for under no other conditions would an Assyrian king release him and restore him to his kingdom.
Now he seeks to undo in the rest of his life all the evil that he had done. He builds the outer wall of the city of David, which had doubtless been thrown down or injured by the Assyrians. He compassed about Ophel, which is the southeastern division of the city of Jerusalem, put captains in all the fenced cities of Judah, “And he took away the strange gods, and the idol out of the house of the Lord, and all the altars that he had built in the mount of the house of the Lord, and in Jerusalem, and cast them out of the city. And he built up the altar of the Lord, and offered thereon sacrifices of peace offerings and of thanksgiving, and commanded Judah to serve the Lord, the God of Israel.” But it was too late. Manasseh died, having to some extent redeemed the evil of his early reign, but was not buried in the sepulchers of the kings. During that terrible revival of idolatry and of evil, there was a severe persecution against all the righteous people, especially the prophets, so severe that the blood of the prophets and righteous people was spilled like water in Jerusalem. During that period, tradition says, Isaiah was sawn asunder. It is a tradition which goes far back, and is probably true. Thus during that terrible persecution in the reign of Manasseh, Isaiah met his death.
Now we take up the reign of Amon, son of Manasseh. He reigned but two years and walked in the footsteps of his father Manasseh, kept up the idolatrous worship, promulgated heathenism, learned no lessons from his father’s sins, repentance, remorse, and reformation, and at the end of two years by means of a palace insurrection not an insurrection among the people, but a palace insurrection he was put to death. Why this insurrection came, and why they sought to put Amon to death we do not know. Certainly it could not have been the work of the prophetic class, who were true to Jehovah. That class of men do not murder, and yet what class of people were there who desired the death of Amon since he favored idolatry? We have so little light that we cannot settle the question. The people at once rose up and the murderers of the king were put to death, and Josiah, only eight years old) the son of Amon was put on the throne.
So now we come to the reign of Josiah, the best of all the kings, a man against whom nothing can be said; we have a description of his character: “And he did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and walked in all the ways of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.
And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.” But in spite of the fact that there was such a king upon the throne, as nearly perfect in character as any king ever was, the sin of Judah still remained, too deep dyed and too great to be forgiven by the Lord, though God defers the evil day till Josiah has passed from the earth. Josiah began in the eighth year of his reign to make reformations in his kingdom, and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from all its high places, and the image of Asherah, and the graven images and the molten images, and brake down the altars of Baalim in his presence, and even took the bones of the priests that were buried there, and burned them upon the altars, desecrating them so that they would not use them any more. He carried on a drastic reformation as early as he was able to do so, beginning at sixteen years of age, and when twenty, redoubling his vigor. The next work was to repair the Temple. When twenty-six years of age he gave orders for it to be repaired, and the man that carried on the reformation and renovation of the Temple was Hilkiah of whom we shall speak later. Behind Josiah, working with and among the people, is another great prophet, Jeremiah. No doubt he was one of the powers behind the throne, one of the great forces which inspired Josiah to carry on his work, for in this period Jeremiah was in the first part of his career. So Josiah, helped by Hilkiah and Jeremiah, repaired the Temple, built it, rededicated it, sacrificed and kept the Passover, etc.
While that was going on one of the principal events of his reign occurred. The Temple had been desecrated for nearly forty years. It had been broken down, and now while they were repairing it, clearing away the rubbish from the altars, perhaps into the holy of holies, and to the ark of the covenant, Hilkiah the high priest found a book. It was the book of the Law given by the hand of Moses. Hilkiah at once spoke to Shaphan the scribe and handed the book to him, and Shaphan took it before the king. It is certain that the book discovered there contained the book of Deuteronomy. The book of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 27-28) contains the curses that would come upon the nation (Israel) if it forsook the law of God. I have no doubt that this section was read before king Josiah, and no monarch could but tremble and shudder if he heard those words of Moses. Josiah rent his clothes, and he sent for the prophetess, Huldah. Josiah remembered that the kingdom had committed all the sins Moses here mentioned. He knew that the evils threatened must inevitably come, and that meant his kingdom and his throne would go down in utter and overwhelming shame.
They went to the prophetess, Huldah, and she said, “These things are true; they shall come to pass,” but adds this: “Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Tell ye the man that sent you unto me, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah; because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore is my wrath poured out upon this place, and it shall not be quenched. But unto the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the Lord, thus shall ye say to him, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel: as touching the words which thou hast heard, because thine heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before God, when thou heardest his word against this place and against the inhabitants thereof, and hast humbled thyself before me, and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me, I also have heard thee, saith the Lord. Behold, I will gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace, neither shall thine eyes see all the evil that I will bring upon this place.”
Thus Josiah trembling beneath the terrible curse that must inevitably come, had this assurance, which leaves some hope and courage in his heart, that it would not come in his day, but that he should see peace. Then what does Josiah do? The next thing is to gather together all the elders of all Judah and Jerusalem and have the book read before them. There were probably many idolatrous men among them, but when summoned thus by the king they came and on hearing the book of the law read with curses there pronounced, they concurred with Josiah and the nation thus represented, renewed its covenant with God. The old covenant that had been broken was now renewed and they vowed that they would keep his commandments and testimonies and statutes with all their heart and soul. This was an epoch in the life of Josiah and of the nation and in the life of Jeremiah also, for we find in Jer 11 that it had a great effect upon his preaching. He had been prophesying several years before this, and in chapter II we see that his preaching took a new turn: “Thus saith the Lord, hear ye the words of his covenant, and speak unto the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”
This furnished Jeremiah with a text, and he goes forth preaching with marvelous power on the basis of this great covenant renewed because of the finding of the Law. As soon as the Law was found Josiah carried on his reformation even more drastically than before. The work had never been completed. Now Josiah carries it to completion. Notice what he does: brings forth out of the Temple of the Lord all the vessels that were made for the worship of Baal and for the Asherah and all the hosts of heaven; put down all the idolatrous priests; brought out the image of Asherah from the Temple; broke down the houses of the Sodomites where they carried on their abominations under the name of religion; degraded the priests that bad been officiating at the high places; defiled Topheth, the place where they had been causing their sons to pass through the fire to the god, Molech; took away the horses that the king of Judah had made and had given to the sun, images of horses representing a part of the idolatrous worship of some of their deities; removed all the altars and destroyed the high places and desecrated them by burning the bones of the priests thereon. It was as drastic and as complete as could be made.
But it is only outward. Josiah didn’t turn the people’s hearts, and Jeremiah who had been prophesying all this time at last comes to the conclusion the first man in the history of revelation that “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?” And the only way that Israel could be saved was to be saved through a new covenant which would write the laws of God upon their hearts and put them in their minds.
In connection with his great reformation Josiah went to the Northern Kingdom and defiled the altar of Bethel in fulfilment of the prophecy of the old man of God who had come up from Judah and warned Jeroboam against his departure from the worship of Jehovah in going after the calves of Dan and Bethel. But he spared the old prophet’s monument. Now he kept the Passover as it had not been kept for many years; he gathered together all the people of Israel far and near, even from the north. Notice in 2Ch 35:7 that he “gave to the children of the people, of the flock, lambs and kids, all of them for the passover.” To the poor people who could not afford it, Josiah gave offerings for the passover, “and the princes gave freewill offerings.” The Passover was kept, as it had not been kept since the days of Samuel.
Now we would expect this to result in a revival, a long period of blessing and of the true worship of God, but it was only outward; it was not deep in heart; it was not lasting; Josiah did his noblest, and his name is one of the most blessed in all the annals of kings. He tried to prevent the awful doom of Judah, but “the times were out of joint,” and the sin of Judah was so deep and terrible that nothing could check it. The tears of Jeremiah, the most pathetic of all the figures in prophetic history, after forty years of effort, failed to do it.
We now come to the death of Josiah. It is quite probable that Josiah had to pay tribute to the kingdom of Assyria during all his reign. Manasseh did, and it is quite probable that Josiah felt himself under obligation to the king of Assyria, and this fact may account for the strange action which led to his death. During this time Egypt had risen to power; a very able king was on the throne, Pharaoh-necoh, and the old time rivalry between Egypt and Assyria had revived. Egypt wanted all the world and Assyria wanted all the land next to hers, and those two great nations, one in the Nile Valley and the other in the Mesopotamian Valley, were always trying to conquer each other. Now Pharaoh-necho was coming up the coast of Palestine to meet the Assyrians. It seems that Josiah felt himself duty bound to help Assyria and check Pharaoh’s progress, for he marched out against him to fight a little kingdom, Judah, little more than the city of Jerusalem itself against the king of Egypt. The king of Egypt warned him: “Now, don’t you meddle with me. I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war; and God hath commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me: that he destroy thee not.” For some reason Josiah determined to fight him and check him on his way. They met in the valley of Esdraelon, then called the valley of Megiddo; the battle was joined; Josiah, though he disguised himself, was wounded by the archers and turned about to flee to Jerusalem and died. He was cut off after a reign of not more than thirty years, in the middle of one of the most glorious and useful reigns that Judah ever witnessed. There was great grief. All Jerusalem and Judah mourned for Josiah. Jeremiah lamented sorely, and we can understand why. Jeremiah wept because he could see plainly the hope of the kingdom was gone, and the doom now was swift and sure. “All the singing men and singing women speak of Josiah in their lamentations until this day,” meaning, of course, when this was written. “And they made them an ordinance in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the lamentations.” The book of Lamentations written by Jeremiah, is not referred to here; it must have been a collection of songs of that nature written and preserved. We do not possess them now, as they have been lost. It seemed that the light of Judah had gone out, and the only thing to be done was to wait patiently until the end came, and it came before very long.
QUESTIONS
1. Give a general statement of the condition of Judah at the end of Hezekiah’s reign.
2. What was the result of the work of Isaiah and Hezekiah?
3. Who succeeded Hezekiah, what was his mother’s name and what its meaning?
4. What was his character and work?
5. What change in the throne of Assyria during his reign?
6. What was Jehovah’s message to Judah through the prophets?
7. Give an account of Manasseh’s further crimes, imprisonment, and
8. What was the spiritual condition of the people at this time?
9. What of his repentance and where do we find his prayer recorded?
10. Who succeeded Manasseh and what was his character and death?
11. Who succeeded Amon, and what his character, how old was he when he began to reign and when was he converted?
12. What of his early reformation?
13. What book found m repairing the Temple and what effect of the discovery on Josiah?
14. What great prophet begins his work in this period and what other contemporaneous with him?
15. What prophetess appears here and what were her prophecies?
16. Give an account of the making of the covenant.
17. What was Josiah’s further reformation?
18. Why did he send the ashes of the images of Baal to Bethel?
19. What did he do with the powder of Asherah?
20. What was the meaning of “horses given to the sun”?
21. What prophecy fulfilled in Josiah’s acts at Bethel?
22. Who was the prophet “that came out of Samaria”?
23. Give an account of Josiah’s passover.
24. What circumstances of Josiah’s death?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Ki 23:1 And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem.
Ver. 1. And the king sent. ] This he did, that he might the better insure the promise made to himself; and avert, if possible, the judgments threatened against the people by Huldah the prophetess.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 23
And the king stood by the pillar, and he made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and the testimonies and the statutes with their heart and with their soul, and to perform the covenant that was written in the book. And all the people stood to the covenant ( 2Ki 23:3 ).
So the king stood there and in his heart he said, “Okay, God, I’m going to obey You. I’m going to follow You. I’m going to serve You.” And made his commitment unto God. Very beautiful, beautiful scene. And the people again standing with that covenant with the king.
And so the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the LORD all of the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the host of heaven: and he burned them there in the valley of Kidron in the fields, and he took the ashes on up to Bethel [and buried them there] ( 2Ki 23:4 ).
They burned… they began to tear down all of the high places, the places of worship and so forth for the pagan gods. And they came on up to Bethel and they broke down the altar that was there in the city of Bethel that Jeroboam had built to worship in the northern kingdom. And they beat down the altar and they took the graves and they took the bones out of the graves and they burned the bones which was a desecration of the altar.
Now this goes back several hundred years for when Jeroboam first became the king over the northern Israel. He built this altar in Bethel, and as he was worshipping at the altar, you remember the story of the young prophet that came out of Judah and cried against the altar? “O altar, O altar, men’s bones will be burned on you.” Jeroboam stretched forth his hand, he said, “Arrest that young man!” And his hand withered. Jeroboam said to him, “Pray for me that God will heal me.” And the young prophet prayed for Jeroboam and his hand was healed. And you remember that he said, Jeroboam said, “Come and eat at my house and I’ll give you a reward.” And he said, “You know, if you gave me the whole kingdom I can’t stay. For the Lord who sent me here to cry against the altar told me not to eat any bread, drink any water in this place, not even to go home by the way I came.” And so he took off.
And a couple of boys were there whose dad was a prophet. They went home and said, “Dad, there was a prophet came out of Judah, young kid. Man, he cried against the king and the king reached out his hand and told them to arrest him and his hand withered. And he prayed, the hand was healed.” Dad said, “Which way did he go?” “He went down the road that way.” He said, “Get my donkey.” And he saddled his donkey and took off after the young man and he caught up with him. And he was sitting there under a tree. And he said, “Who are you? Are you the young prophet?” He said, “Yes, I am.” He said, “Why don’t you come back to my house and eat some bread, drink water.” He said, “No, the Lord who sent me told me not to drink any water in this place, any bread in this place, but get on home without even going back the same way.” He said, “Well, I also am a prophet and the Lord spoke to me and said come and get you and invite you to come to my house.” So the young prophet listened to the old man. Had respect for his age and so forth. He listened to him and he came back. And while he was eating bread in the old man’s house, the Spirit of the Lord came on the old man and he cursed him. He said, “Because you’ve done this and all, you’re not going to get home. You’re going to die in the way.”
And so as the young prophet left, a lion attacked him and killed him. And so news came back to the old prophet that the young man had been killed. And they said, “This is the word of the Lord, you know, that he wouldn’t get home safely.” And so he came out and the lion was standing there, had not eaten him or torn him, but just left his body there. And the donkey was just sort of roaming around that the kid was riding on. And he picked up the young prophet and brought him back and buried him. You remember the story. So here’s the young prophet that cried out against the altar.
So as Josiah is up there now tearing down the altar to desecrate it, he burns. They see these graves; they take the bones out of them and burn them. It’s a way of just really utter disrespect and desecration of an altar. Thus, the prophecy was fulfilled.
And then they saw another grave and they said, “What’s that tombstone say?” They said, “Well, that’s the young prophet who came up and cried up against the altar.” He said, “Don’t take his bones. Just leave his bones lie.” And so it ties back into the prophecy and so forth of this young prophet, and here we come with it again. Back in First Kings, chapter thirteen, you’ll find the story of that young prophet.
Moreover [verse fifteen] the altar that was at Bethel, the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, he made Israel to sin, had made, that altar, the high place he broke down, he burned the high place, stamped it small to powder, burned the grove that was by it. And as Josiah turned himself, he spied the sepulchres that were there in the mount, and he sent, and he took the bones out of the sepulchres, burned them on the altar, polluted it, according to the word of the LORD which the man of God proclaimed, who had proclaimed these words ( 2Ki 23:15-16 ).
Now Josiah commanded that they keep the Passover. Of course, they had not been keeping the holy days, the feast days, and Passover was coming. And so they had this huge Passover, and in Second Chronicles we’ll actually get into further details of this huge Passover feast that was instituted by Josiah. The death of Josiah is recorded for us in the beginning of verse twenty-eight, how that the king of Egypt had come up against the king of Assyria, and how that Josiah went up to battle and he got into the battle at Megiddo. And there he was killed at Megiddo, and he was brought in his chariot back to Jerusalem and buried.
Now Jehoahaz his son was twenty-three years old when he began to reign; he reigned for three months. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD ( 2Ki 23:31-32 ),
And Pharaoh put him in bands and he took… he actually took him out and put tribute upon the land, and the Pharoah then made a vassal king Jehoiakim. And Jehoiakim was just a vassal king to the Pharaoh, and he paid the Pharaoh, of course, the tribute that the Pharaoh had demanded. He was twenty-five years old. He reigned for eleven years. And during this time, Jeremiah is really crying out against the sins of the people. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 23:1
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
In this chapter we have a graphic account of the reformation following the discovery of the book of the Law. It was carried out by the splendid enthusiasm and energy of Josiah, and it is interesting to note its process. First came the public reading of the book of the Law. This was followed by a covenant into which all entered to restore the lost order. Immediately succeeding, the work went forward, and a simple reading of the story shows how thoroughly, so far as the king was concerned, the work was done. The Temple was cleansed of all the vessels of false religions, and also of the priests. From one end of the country to the other, the idolatrous idols and altars were swept away.
Following this drastic cleansing of the land, the Passover feast, long neglected, was observed with all its ancient glory. As we have said, as far as Josiah was concerned, this whole procedure was the outcome of sincerity and loyalty. The people, however, were simply following the lead of the king, not under any sense of penitence or return to Jehovah. Therefore God did not turn from His necessary judgment. Josiah had done all he was able to do, and in fulfilment of the prophecy of Huldah was gathered to rest before the final stroke fell. Thus, with fine discrimination God moves forward, delivering the godly from the midst of judgment as it falls upon the godless.
And now, in rapid succession, the judgments fell. Jehoahaz succeeded to the throne, and notwithstanding all that had been done during the reign of Josiah, returned immediately to evil ways in his brief reign of three months. The king of Egypt deposed him, and set Jehoiakim on the throne. However, he reigned only as tributary to Pharaoh. The lesson of righteousness was not learned, and for eleven years this man, no longer king but only the vassal of Egypt, continued his evil way.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Hearkening to the Message
2Ki 22:14-20; 2Ki 23:1-4
Josiahs fears were deeply stirred by the evils which the Law of the Lord clearly indicated as imminent, and he immediately sent for advice to the prophetess Huldah, who was held in great veneration. Her answer was full of gentle kindness. Though the kings punishment could not be averted, it should nevertheless be postponed. How quick is God to notice the tears of genuine contrition and to meet the soul that seeks to do His will! If only the whole nation had been equally repentant, its fate would have doubtless been altered.
It is remarkable, however, that even in Josiahs case the prediction of the prophetess was not realized. He died in battle, and his dead body was brought to Jerusalem amid mourning that became proverbial, 2Ki 23:30; Zec 12:2. Why this apparent breach of promise? The answer is suggested by our Lords temptation. He refused to make bread of stones, because of His absolute faith in God, and when Satan tempted him still further to manifest that faith by casting Himself from the beetling Temple crag, he again refused because such an act was not in the scope of the Fathers plan. On the other hand, Josiah, disregarding all counsels to the contrary, needlessly flung himself into the fray between Egypt and Babylon and there lost his life. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God!
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 23:3-4, 2Ki 23:25-26
The lesson we learn from this chapter is that we may repent and yet be punished.
I. People do not like to believe that; it is much more convenient to fancy that when a man repents and, as he says, turns over a new leaf, he need trouble himself no more about his past sins. But it is a mistake; he may not choose to trouble himself about his past sins, but he will find that his past sins trouble him, whether he chooses or not.
II. After the forgiveness of sin must come the cure of sin. And that cure, like most cures, is a long and painful process. Heavy, and bitter, and shameful is the burden which many a man has to bear after he has turned from self to God, from sin to holiness. He is haunted, as it were, by the ghosts of his own follies. The good that he would do he does not do, and the evil that he would not do he does.
III. Christ, the great Healer, the great Physician, can deliver us, and will deliver us, from the remains of our old sins, the consequences of our own follies. Not, indeed, at once, or by miracle, but by slow education in new and nobler motives, in purer and more unselfish habits. And better for us perhaps that He should not cure us at once, lest we should fancy that sin was a light thing, which we could throw off whenever we chose, not what it is: an inward disease, corroding and corrupting, the wages whereof are death. Provided we attain at last to the truly heroic and Divine life, which is the life of virtue, it will matter little to us by what wild and weary ways or by what painful and humiliating processes we have arrived thither.
C. Kingsley, All Saints’ Day, and Other Sermons, p. 292.
References: 2Ki 23:1, 2Ki 23:2.-G. Moberly, Plain Sermons, p. 157. 2Ki 23:6.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 249. 2Ki 23:17.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iv., p. 248. 2Ki 23:22.-R. W. Evans, Parochial Sermons, p. 276. 2Ki 23:25.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xi., p. 81. 2Ki 23:25, 2Ki 23:26.-Bishop Temple, Rugby Sermons, 2nd series, p. 305.
2Ki 23:29-30
I. The striking feature of this story is the picture it gives us of the quiet manner in which God’s servants are sometimes allowed to pass away when they have finished their work. The history of the death of Josiah, as compared with that of his life, puts things in their right order: his life active, hard-working, zealous; his death quiet, unexciting, what we should call inglorious. The history seems fitted to check that tendency which exists in men’s minds to lay too much stress upon the circumstances of a man’s death, to be fond of exciting deathbed scenes, to delight in religious books which describe very vividly the last moments of departing souls. He who will stand least reprovable at the last day will be he who has worked here the most earnestly and vigorously in the cause of holiness and of Christ when all the temptations of the world and the strength of Satan have been opposed to him.
II. The moral we may draw from the text is that he who does his work in the proper time, who does not put off till old age the work of youth, nor to the hour of death the labour of life, may be quiet and unconcerned for the way in which God may be pleased to call him. If he is called by some sudden providence when engaged in his work or summoned by some speedy sickness, he may be of good cheer and of a quiet mind, knowing that God will do all things well.
Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 3rd series, p. 93.
References: 2Ki 23-Parker, vol. viii., p. 302. 2Ki 24-Ibid., p. 305. 2Ki 25:30.-Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 45.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
2. The Results of the Revival and the Death of Josiah
CHAPTER 23:1-30
1. The People hear the law (2Ki 23:1-2; 2 Chron. 34)
2. Josiah makes a covenant (2Ki 23:3)
3. The great reformations (2Ki 23:4-20)
4. The Passover celebrated (2Ki 23:21-23; 2 Chron. 35)
5. Further statements concerning Josiah (2Ki 23:24-27)
6. The death of Josiah (2Ki 23:29-30)
It is a great scene with which this chapter opens. The king feels now his responsibility towards the people. All the elders of Judah and Jerusalem were called together by him. Then there was a great procession of people headed by the king, followed by the elders, the priests and the prophets and all the people both small and great. The king read before this vast assembly all the words of the book of the covenant. The king standing on a pillar, or Platform, made a solemn covenant to walk after the LORD and to keep His commandments. All the people stood by it. But it did not last very long. As far as the king was concerned there can be no question that it was real with him. However, if we read the opening chapters of Jeremiah we find that the peoples consecration was but skin-deep. They did not turn unto the LORD with the whole heart, but in falsehood (Jer 3:10).
The description of the cleansing of Judah and Jerusalem of all the abominable things (verses 4-20) shows the awful depths of vileness and wickedness into which the professing people of God had sunk. All the abominations of the flesh connected with the worship of Baal and Ashera and a host of other things flourished in the land. And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned mens bones upon them and returned to Jerusalem (verse 20).
The keeping of the Passover, the blessed feast of remembrance of what Jehovah had done, follows immediately after the cleansing of the land. The full account we find in Chronicles where we give further comment (2Ch 35:1-19). But the record declares that there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah. The same was said of Hezekiahs passover (2Ch 30:26). Hezekiahs passover was greater than any previous one and Josiahs feast was even greater than that of his great-grandfather.
And all the workers with familiar spirits (the demon possessed mediums) and other wickedness he cut off. In all this Josiah pleased Jehovah and the Spirit of God testifies to it. And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him. Yet after these words there stands written once more the judgment message so soon to be accomplished upon Judah and Jerusalem.
Josiah died, having been shot on the battlefield at Megiddo. The Chronicles contains the details of his death (2Ch 35:20-27).
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
the king: Deu 31:28, 2Sa 6:1, 2Ch 29:20, 2Ch 30:2, 2Ch 34:29, 2Ch 34:30-33
Reciprocal: 1Ch 13:1 – consulted Mat 1:10 – Josias
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Ki 23:1. The king sent and gathered unto him all the elders Although he had received a message from God, that there was no preventing the ruin of Jerusalem, and that he only should deliver his own soul; yet he does not therefore sit down in despair, and resolve to do nothing for his country, because he could not do all he would. But he will endeavour to do his duty, and then leave the event to God. He knew, if any thing could prevent, delay, or alleviate the threatened ruin, it must be a public reformation. He therefore makes preparations for this, by summoning a general assembly of the magistrates, or representatives of the people, with the priests and prophets, the ordinary and extraordinary ministers of God: that, these all joining in it, what was done might become a national act, and so be the more likely to prevent national judgments; and that so many principal persons advising and assisting in it, the whole business might be transacted with more solemnity, and such as were against it might be discouraged from making any opposition.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 23:29. He slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him; as in 2Ki 14:8. It would seem from this phrase that the two kings were engaged in single combat. This was an error for which Josiah forfeited his life, and the Israelites their glory. The king neither consulted the Lord, nor his prophets. One sad error put out the light of Israel; for with this king, all that belonged to regal virtue in Davids house seemed to expire.
REFLECTIONS.On reading the history of the Israelites in their passage through the wilderness, we are astonished at their unbelief and hardness of heart, amidst such a profusion of miracles and of mercies, and wonder how they could presume to tempt the Lord and to grieve his Holy Spirit in the manner they did, for the space of forty years; yet it seems that these provocations were only a specimen of their general character, and served the purpose of illustrating the great goodness and longsuffering of God towards them. With some few exceptions in the early part of their national history, during the reign of David and Solomon, and some others, we observe the same incorrigible spirit of unbelief and of rebellion against God, with encreasing proofs of the awful depravity and corruption of human nature, down to the latest period of their social existence.
Jehoiakim, the son of good king Josiah, whose untimely death all Judah lamented, was a most profligate and unprincipled tyrant, guilty of every species of oppression towards the people, and of impiety towards God. His odious reign of eleven years had filled the nation with such abhorrence, that the common rites of sepulture were denied him at his death; his carcase was cast out of the city like so much dung, and left apparently to rot above-ground, the greatest indignity that could be offered to human nature. Jer 22:13-19.
The son of this degraded prince was Jehoiachin, sometimes called Jeconiah, and by way of contempt Coniah, Jer 22:24; but in the evangelical genealogy he is called Jechonias. Mat 1:11. Incapable of moral improvement, this Jehoiachin took no warning whatever from the example of his father, whose memory was shaded with the deepest infamy, but abandoned himself to vice and profligacy. After a short reign of little more than three months, he was dethroned by Nebuchadnezzar, and carried into Babylon, where he died in captivity, an awful monument of divine displeasure. In the former siege of Jerusalem, during the reign of Jehoiakim his father, Nebuchadnezzar carried away upwards of three thousand of the principal people, and the more valuable part of the vessels of the sanctuary. In the present instance the Chaldean monarch made more than ten thousand captives, and carried off what still remained in the temple. Thus the day of Jerusalems destruction, so long and frequently foretold, was now rapidly approaching, and the time of the Lords anger was hastening on.
Mattaniah, brother of Jehoiachin, was nominated to the vacant throne by Nebuchadnezzar, being merely his viceroy, the dominion having in effect passed into the hands of the king of Babylon. This Mattaniah, whose name the conqueror changed to Zedekiah, was the last of the kings of Judah; with him the kingdom of the two tribes totally ceased, and all went into captivity. This deputy king exhibited the same inveterate depravity as his predecessors, took no warning from their fearful example, but set at defiance the denunciations of the prophets, and even dared the vengeance of heaven. Having filled up the measure of his iniquity, after a turbulent reign of eight years, and violating his covenant with Nebuchadnezzar, he was hurled from this throne, was summoned into the presence of Nebuchadnezzar at his camp in Riblah, where his eyes were ordered to be put out; and he was then consigned to the dungeons of Babylon. In this third and last siege Jerusalem was utterly destroyed by the Chaldeans, all that remained in the temple was carried away, with numerous of the inhabitants; and thus terminated the awful catastrophe, the particulars of which are enumerated in the following chapter.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 23:3. by the pillar . . . covenant: for the word pillar see 2Ki 11:14 and 1Ki 7:21. In the latter passage it is used for the two great brazen pillars set up by Solomon before the porch of the Temple. In making the covenant the king takes the lead. The ceremony was accompanied by a sacrifice; hence the phrase in Heb. is to cut a covenant (Gen 15:17*, Jer 34:18) or divide the victims. The newly discovered volume is called (2Ki 23:2) the book of the covenant; cf. Exo 24:7, where the book was sprinkled with sacrificial blood. In a covenant there was not necessarily an implication that there were two parties. The king made this before Yahweh. Skinner (Cent.B) says, The effect of the covenant was to give to the Deuteronomic Code the force of statute law.
Josiahs reformation (2Ki 23:6-16) may be classified under the following heads:
A. 2Ki 23:4; 2Ki 23:6 f., 2Ki 23:10-12. Reformation of the Temple.(i.) 2Ki 23:4; 2Ki 23:6. Hilkiah and the second priest (? for priests of the second order; cf. 2Ki 25:18, Jer 52:24) were ordered to bring all idolatrous objects and vessels out of the Temple, which were burned by the Kidron. (ii.) 2Ki 23:7 : All the votaries of impure rites were ejected. (iii.) 2Ki 23:10. The Moloch worship was abolished, and Tophet (Jer 7:31*) in the valley of the children of Hinnom (Gehinnom, Gehenna, Mat 5:22) was defiled. (iv.) 2Ki 23:11 f: The cult of the heavenly bodies (2Ki 21:3*) was put down by the destruction of the horses of the sun and the altars on the roofs.
B. 2Ki 23:5; 2Ki 23:8 f., 2Ki 23:13 f. Reformation in Jerusalem and Judah.(i) 2Ki 23:5. The idolatrous priests, Kemarim (Hos 10:15, Zep 1:4), were put down, together with their high places. (ii.) 2Ki 23:8 f. The priests of the ordinary high places where Yahweh was worshipped were removed to Jerusalem and recognised as priests, for, though not allowed to sacrifice, they were permitted to eat the unleavened bread provided for priests. (iii.) 2Ki 23:8; 2Ki 23:13 f; The high places of the gates (or perhaps of satyrs or demons) and the idolatrous shrines erected by Solomon on the mount of offence, S. of the Mt. of Olives, were defiled by the king.
C. 2Ki 23:15. Josiahs Destruction of the Altar of Bethel.This showed that the misfortunes predicted in the law book which had already befallen Israel were due to the sin of Jeroboam.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
JOSIAH’S COVENANT AND JUDGMENT OF IDOLATRY
(vv.1-20)
Being king in Judah and therefore the representative of all the people, Josiah realised his responsibility of involving them all in hearing the Word of God. Beginning with the elders, he called the people to the house of the Lord. Thus, elders, priests, prophets and the common people were gathered (vv.1-2). There Josiah himself read all the words of the Book of the Covenant, which would include the five books of Moses.
The king then made a covenant before the Lord to follow the Lord and to keep His commandments, testimonies and statutes with all his heart and soul, and to perform all that was written in the book. All the people also agreed to this covenant (v.3).
Making such promises was not forbidden under law, though Israel’s many broken covenants should have warned Josiah that Judah would do no better in the future than they had done in the past. When the Lord Jesus came, however, He publicly declared, “Again, you have heard that it was said of those of old, You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord. But I say to you, do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne: nor by earth, for it is His footstool, nor by Jerusalem. for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your Yes be “Yes” and your No, “No”. For whatever is more than these is from the evil one” (Mat 5:33-37).
The Lord Jesus can swear by God’s name, for His word cannot be broken, but Israel’s history has proven to us that, no other human can be trusted to perform his vows or promises. This was ratified in the case of the covenant Josiah and Israel made, for Jehoahaz the son of Josiah led Israel back into the same idolatry they were delivered from in Josiah’s day.
However, at this time there was energy of faith, predominantly in the case of Josiah, to get rid of the idolatry introduced by Josiah’s fathers, Manasseh and Amon. Josiah gave orders to Hilkijah the high priest and priests under him as well as to the doorkeepers to bring out of the temple all the articles that were made for Baal and Asherah and other false gods. These were taken outside of Jerusalem and burned (v.4).
But there was much more to do in cleansing Judah from the overflowing tide of idolatry that had invaded the land. Josiah removed the idolatrous priests from the high places in the cities of Judah, and all those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun, to the moon and to the constellations of stars in the whole heaven (v.5). Judah had multiplied her gods beyond measure. A wooden image had been put in the house of the Lord, just as many churches introduce images that look nice but are an insult to the Lord Jesus. Josiah burned the image at the brook Kidron and threw the ashes on graves (v.6), signifying that the idolatry was worthy only of the corruption of death.
Josiah broke down the houses of the Sodomites (v.7 JND trans.) that were in the house of the Lord where the women wove hangings for the wooden image. How bold had wickedness become to thus invade the house of the Lord!
Josiah, in firm decision for the Lord, brought all the priests from the cities of Judah and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, thus rendering the places unusable, from Geba to Beersheba, not a short distance (v.8). Other high places also he broke down.
The priests of the high places were thus dispossessed of their occupation, but did not come up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. They evidently had no energy of faith to change completely from their accustomed idolatry, but they ate unleavened bread among their brethren (v.9). Was this not an attempt to cover their sin by a show of religious zeal? For the unleavened bread symbolises a separation from evil, but the show apart from the reality of separation is hypocrisy.
Josiah also defiled Topheth, where idolaters practised the offering of their children to Molech by fire (v.10). How can people feel that they are spiritually zealous in carrying out such abominable practices? But they are totally deceived by Satan. Also there were horses and chariots dedicated to the sun at the entrance to the house of God. Josiah removed the horses and burned the chariots (v.11).
On the roof there were altars made by the kings of Judah, certainly an insult to God whose altar outside and that inside the temple both spoke of Christ. Other altars expose men’s desire to have other gods. Beside these Manasseh had made altars in the two courts of the house of the Lord. All of these Josiah broke down and pulverised, throwing their dust into the brook Kidron (v.12).
Other high places east of Jerusalem and south of the Mount of Olives Josiah also defiled. It is called the mount of Corruption because Solomon had corrupted it by building high places for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites and Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites (v.13). We can well imagine people objecting to Josiah, saying that these were long established high places and had the dignity of King Solomon’s approval. But Josiah was concerned about God’s approval and what offended God must be destroyed. Josiah also broke in pieces the sacred pillars and cut down the wooden images and filled their places with the bones of men (v.14). This may refer to those who defended the idolatry and suffered death for this.
Bethel, only 12 miles from Jerusalem, had been taken by Jereboam in his rebellion against Rehoboam, but of course the ten tribes had no authority left in Israel, so Josiah broke down the altar and the high place that Jereboam had introduced, crushing the high place to powder and burning the wooden image there (v.15). There also he saw graves on the mountain, evidently graves of those who had been engaged in the worship at the high place. He had the bones taken from the graves and burned on the altar. This was a fulfilment of the prophecy of the man of God who had come to Jereboam when he was at his idolatrous attar (1Ki 13:1-2).
Seeing another gravestone, he asked about the person buried there, and was told this was the grave of the man of God who had prophesied of what Josiah had just done (v.17). So his grave was left unmolested. This involved too the bones of the prophet who lived in Bethel, but whom we are told here had come from Samaria (ch.18), for he had buried the first prophet in his own grave and told his sons to bury him there also (1Ki 13:11-32).
Josiah’s purging of the land extended to all the cities of Samaria from which he took away all the shrines of the high places introduced by the kings of Israel (the ten tribes). He executed all the priests of the high places and defiled their altars by burning men’s bones on them (v.20). Thus, as far as it was possible, Josiah completely cleansed the land of Israel from their idolatry. We would likely expect the faith of this young king to so influence his son that he would follow his father’s steps, but sadly Jehoahaz reverted to the same evil the previous kings of Judah had been guilty of (vv.31-52).
THE PASSOVER KEPT
But Josiah’s energy was not limited to getting rid of evil. The positive character of his faith is seen beautifully in verses 21-23. He commanded all the people to keep the Passover to the Lord according to God’s directions in the Book of the Covenant. The Passover was in remembrance of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, and looked forward to the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus on Calvary.
It is most striking that such a Passover had never been held in Israel throughout all the history of the kings of Israel or of Judah. Not even that in Hezekiah’s time (2Ch 30:1-27) could compare with this one carried out by Josiah. Though in Kings there are only three verses referring to the Passover, it is more fully described in 2Ch 35:1-19. At this time Josiah was only 26 years old, yet it was his own energy of faith that initiated this wonderful Passover and carried it out in obedience to the word of God. This illustrates the fact that a young man may be a faithful example to believers, as Timothy, a young man, was told to be (1Ti 4:12).
UNUSUAL FAITH DID NOT AVERT GOD’S JUDGMENT
(vv.24-27)
Verse 24 tells us how fully Josiah removed every form of idolatrous practice in Judah and Jerusalem, banishing all who consulted with mediums and spiritists, and not only public idols, but household idols, for he wanted nothing allowed to continue that was forbidden by the book Hilkijah had found in the house of the Lord.
It is therefore a wonderful commendation given him in verse 25. No king before him or after him had turned to the Lord so fully with all his soul and with all his might as did Josiah.
Yet God had told Josiah that His wrath had been aroused against Judah because of all their iniquity and that wrath would not be quenched. This is repeated in verse 26. The Lord did not turn from the fierceness of His great wrath against Judah. Josiah’s faithfulness had only delayed the judgment during his own reign. Even though Manasseh had been converted in his later years, the evil he had been guilty of was enormous, and Judah had been greatly defiled by this. Though God’s grace may triumph over man’s sin to save him from eternal judgment, yet God’s government requires the judgment of whatever evil has been done. Therefore God would remove Judah from their land, just as He had allowed Israel to be removed. Jerusalem, God’s centre, and God’s house in Jerusalem would be cast off, in spite of God’s name having been established there.
JOSIAH’S SAD DEATH
Much more is written in the Book of Chronicles concerning the good reign of Josiah, but it is tragically sad that the end of his reign was not so bright as were the years before. Why was Josiah not content with his having honoured the Lord in those relationships in which God had placed him? It seems that he thought that since God had used him in great blessing to His people, the Jews, then God would also back him up in intervening in the disputes of other nations. If Pharaoh Necho had been coming to fight against Judah, Josiah would have had proper cause to go to war, but this was not the case. Perhaps he had not read Pro 26:17, “He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears.” 2Ch 35:21 quotes the warning of Pharaoh Necho to Josiah, not to interfere, but in spite of this Josiah persisted stubbornly, even disguising himself (2Ch 35:22).
But his disguise did no good. The only person we hear of as dying in that battle was Josiah himself. God was acting behind the scenes, and He would not allow his otherwise faithful servant to get away with this unseemly conduct. He was killed at Megiddo, and his body taken by chariot back to Jerusalem, a long distance, and buried there. Chronicles tells us that all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him (2Ch 35:24). He died at the early age of 39 years. His son Jehoahaz was then anointed king in Judah.
THE BRIEF REIGN OF JEHOAHAZ
(vv.31-33)
Jehoahaz, at 23 years of age, reigned only 3 months. In that brief time he followed the evil that Manasseh and Amon had done (v.32), a sad contrast to the godliness of his father. Evidently also Josiah’s assault against Pharaoh Necho had only drawn the ire of Pharaoh against Judah, and Pharaoh found Judah so vulnerable that he took Jehoahaz captive, putting him in prison at Riblah in the land Hamath and imposing a tribute on the land of 100 talents of silver and one talent of gold (v.33). Thus, though Israel had been delivered from the bondage of Egypt, Egypt came after them to Canaan to put them in bondage again!
Yet Judah was allowed to have a king, but a king of Pharaoh’s choice (v.34). Eliakim was also a son of Josiah, but evidently one easier for Pharaoh to handle. Pharaoh changed his name to Jehoiakim. When Pharaoh returned to Egypt he took Jehoahaz with him, and Jehoahaz died there. He had become king at age 23, reigning only three months, so he was a younger brother of Eliakim, who was 25 when he took the throne. It was the people who made Jehoahaz king, no doubt because they preferred him to his older brother. But Pharaoh reversed the people’s decision.
JEHOIAKIM’S EVIL REIGN
(23:35 to 24:6)
Having been appointed by Pharaoh as king over Judah, Jehoiakim was evidently fully subservient to Pharaoh, taxing the people of the land to pay the tribute of gold and silver that Pharaoh required (v.35). But he was not at all subservient to the Lord, rather he engaged in the same evil his fathers had done, Amon, Manasseh, etc., which involved the worship of idols and the oppression of the people.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
23:1 And the king {a} sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem.
(a) Because he saw the great plagues of God that were threatened, he knew no more speedy way to avoid them, than to turn to God by repentance which cannot come but from faith, and faith by hearing the word of God.
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.”