Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 22:1
Josiah [was] eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name [was] Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath.
Chap. 2Ki 22:1-7. Josiah king of Judah. His good reign. He begins to repair the temple (2Ch 34:1-13)
1. Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign ] Called to the throne as such a mere child the new king must have been under some guardianship, and however good his natural desires may have been, he could hardly have commenced the great reforms which he brought about until he had been some time on the throne.
Boscath ] R.V. Bozcath. This latter is the form of the word in Jos 15:39, where it is mentioned between Lachish and Eglon among the cities of the inheritance of the tribe of Judah. It must have been in the lowlands of Juda, but its site is not identified. It is mentioned only in these two passages of the Bible.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
2Ki 22:1-20
Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign.
A monarch of rare virtue, and a God of retributive justice
I. A monarch of rare virtue. Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign. In this monarch we discover four distinguished merits.
1. Religiousness of action. He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. We discover in Josiah–
2. Docility of mind. It came to pass when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. In Josiah we see–
3. Tenderness of heart. See how the discovery of the book affected him. He rent his clothes.
4. Actualisation of conviction. When this discovered document came under Josiahs attention, and its import was realised, he was seized with a conviction that he, his fathers, and his people, had disregarded, and even outraged, the written precepts of heaven.
II. A God of retributive justice. Such a God the prophetess here reveals. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to Me, thus saith the Lord, Behold I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read. The government over us, and to which we are bound with chains stronger than adamant, is retributive, it never allows evil to go unpunished. It links in indissoluble bonds sufferings to sin. Sorrows follow sin by a law as immutable and resistless as the waves follow the moon. Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap. In this retribution
(1) The wicked are treated with severity, and
(2) the good are treated with favour. (David Thomas, D. D.)
Josiah and the Book of the Law
This lesson gives us the account of a remarkable revival of religion which took place something over six hundred years before the Christian era, under the good reign of the boy-king Josiah. The history of the progress of the kingdom of God on earth is the history of revivals. Like the ebb and flow of the tides has his kingdom apparently advanced and receded, but with this difference, that each spiritual flood-tide has marked a substantial advance upon any previous flood-tide. Every revival has left the Church mightier than it ever was before, and has been a prophecy to the world of the time when the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. In matters of religion it had been a period of ebb-tide for many years before our lesson opens.
I. We learn that the agency God uses in a revival of religion is the agency of men, and often of a single man. Some one torch must first be kindled. Some one soul must be quickened. In some one closet the voice of prevailing prayer must be heard. There was but one voice crying in the wilderness, but it inaugurated the first Christian revival. There was but one Jonathan Edwards in America, and one John Wesley in England, when the great revivals in which they were instrumental began; but thousands were warmed at their fires, and lighted by their torches. Nor is it always a great man intellectually, or one who wields a wide influence, whom God uses to inaugurate the revival: it may be some praying mother, some unknown Christian, some uninfluential brother. As the majestic river rolls onward to the sea, we do not think much of its source, but only of the broad meadows which it waters, and the whirring factories which it has set in motion, and the bustling cities to which it bears the white wings of commerce; but, after all, away back in the hills is a little rivulet which is its source, and back of the rivulet perhaps a hidden spring on the mountain-side, which no eye has ever seen. Back of every revival is some hidden spring which has made it possible; and that spring, as likely as not, is in the chamber of some very humble Christian. That God uses such instrumentalities, our lesson plainly tells us, for Josiah was but a boy of sixteen when this revival began. He might well have objected that he was too young and inexperienced to be the leader in such a reformation. Very likely he had many struggles and misgivings which are not recorded, but it was Gods way to revive his work under the leadership of a boy. What, now, let us ask, are the characteristics of a true revival? We must take the parallel account of this revival which is given in Second Chronicles, as well as the one given in Kings, into consideration.
1. Taking the two stories together, we learn that one remarkable characteristic was the destruction of idolatry. When the king was twenty years old, four years after he began to seek after God, we read that he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images. Idols of all descriptions were cut down and ground to dust, and strewn upon the graves of those who had sacrificed to them. This work of destruction must be well done before the work of construction can be begun. So, very often, is it in the Church and the individual heart, before the reviving work of the Holy Spirit can be accomplished. There are false gods which must be deposed; there are sins of long standing, with deep roots and wide-spreading branches, which must be cut down. There we have a suggestion of the reason why in many a heart and many a church the revival work is only partial and incomplete. The uglier idols are cut down, the grosser sins are abandoned, nevertheless there is some high place especially dear which is not removed–nevertheless there is a pet sin of envy, jealousy or ill-will, or self-indulgence, which is spared; and because no thorough work of reform is accomplished, because the account must needs be qualified by a nevertheless, the soul remains unsaved, the revival fails to come.
2. Another characteristic of this ancient revival and of every true revival was liberality on the part of the people. There was evidently a large sum of silver collected for the repair of the temple, for large repairs were needed. True liberality is both a cause and an effect of a true revival. The beginning of this century was a time of dearth and languishing in the churches. Infidelity was rampant, and threatened to sweep everything before it. But, at the same time, the cause of missions, home and foreign, began to assume proportions they had never known before; the purse-strings of Christian people were loosened; a revival of charity and money-giving spread over the land, and revivals of religion, pure and undefiled, followed in quick and glorious succession. Is his purse converted? was frequently a question of one of John Wesleys co-labourers when he heard of a rich man who had become a Christian. It is a question which might be appropriately asked in every revival season–Have the purses been converted?
3. Another characteristic of this ancient revival in Judah seems to have been the honesty and faithfulness of the people, which extended even to the small details of life. Money was given, we are told, to the carpenters and builders and masons; howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was put into their hand, because they dealt faithfully. That is the legitimate effect, always and everywhere, of a revival of religion; and every revival is spurious that does not tend to produce this result. The merchant feels it as he measures every yard of cloth, and weighs every pound of sugar. The carpenter feels its influence as he drives his plane, the housewife as she wields her broom, the banker as he counts his money, the schoolboy as he studies his lesson. Is such and such a man a Christian?–I dont know; go home and ask his wife, used to be the answer of a famous religious teacher.
4. Another characteristic of this old revival about which we are studying to-day was honour for the house of God. Every true revival has just this characteristic–reverence, honour for the house of God.
5. Once more: the most striking characteristic of this revival of Josiahs reign was honour for the word of God. It hardly seems possible that the Book of the Law could have been utterly lost for years, and that the very remembrance of it should have become a dim tradition. Then the king gathers together all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and reads in their ears all the words which have so awakened him. He renews his covenant with God; he carries out more completely the work of reformation which he had begun, destroying every idol, and restoring the worship of the true God in every part of his domain. It was a wonderful revival; and no characteristic is so striking as the kings reverence for, and ready obedience to, the word of God. But King Josiah is not the only one who has lost the word of God, not the only one from whom it is buried out of sight, under the dust of years. Though copies of the law are dropping from the printing press by the million every year, though it lies in all our houses and is read in all our churches, it is a lost book to-day to thousands, as it was in Josiahs time, Our very familiarity with it hides it from our eyes as effectually as the rubbish of the temple hid it from the Jews; and only a powerful revival of religion can bring it from its hiding-place, and put it in our hands and in our hearts. (Monday Club Sermons.)
Josiahs reformation
Josiah was only twenty years of age when he set about a national reformation of religion as radical and as complete as anything that Martin Luther or John Knox themselves ever undertook. But with this immense difference. Both Luther and Knox had the whole Word of God in their hands both to inspire them and to guide them and to sustain them and to support them in their tremendous task. But Josiah had not one single book or chapter or verse even of the Word of God in his heathen day. The five Books of Moses were as completely lost out of the whole land long before Josiahs day as much so as if Moses had never lifted a pen. And thus it was that Josiahs reformation had a creativeness about it: an originality, an enterprise, and a boldness about it, such that in all these respects it has completely eclipsed all subsequent reformations and revivals–the greatest and the best. The truth is, the whole of that immense movement that resulted in the religious regeneration of Jerusalem and Judah in Josiah day, it all sprang originally and immediately out of nothing else but Josiahs extraordinary tenderness of heart. The Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world shone with extraordinary clearness in Josiahs tender heart and open mind. And Josiah walked in that light and obeyed it, till it became within him an overmastering sense of Divine duty and an irresistible direction and drawing of the Divine hand. And till he performed a work for God and for Israel second to no work that has ever been performed under the greatest and the best of the prophets and kings of Israel combined. It is a very noble spectacle. (Alex. Whyte, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XXII
Josiah succeeds Amon his father, and reigns thirty-one years,
1, 2.
He repairs the breaches of the temple, 3-7.
Hilkiah finds the book of the law tn the temple, 8.
It is read by Shaphan the scribe, before the king and his
servants, 9, 10.
The king, greatly affected, sends to inquire of Huldah the
prophetess, 11-13.
She delivers an afflictive prophecy concerning the evils that
were coming upon the land, 14-17.
But promises Josiah that these evils shall not come in his
time, 18-20.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXII
Verse 1. Josiah was eight years old] He was one of the best, if not the best, of all the Jewish kings since the time of David. He began well, continued well, and ended well.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
1, 2. Josiah was eight years oldwhen he began to reignHappier than his grandfather Manasseh,he seems to have fallen during his minority under the care of betterguardians, who trained him in the principles and practice of piety;and so strongly had his young affections been enlisted on the side oftrue and undefiled religion, that he continued to adhere all hislife, with undeviating perseverance, to the cause of God andrighteousness.
2Ki22:3-7. HE PROVIDESFOR THE REPAIR OF THETEMPLE.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign,…. And must be born when his father was but sixteen, for Amon lived but twenty four years, 2Ki 21:19,
and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem; and so must die at thirty nine years of age:
and his mother’s name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath; a city of the tribe of Judah, [See comments on Jos 15:39].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Length and spirit of Josiah’s reign. – Josiah (for the name, see at 1Ki 13:2), like Hezekiah, trode once more in the footsteps of his pious forefather David, adhering with the greatest constancy to the law of the Lord. He reigned thirty-one years. As a child he had probably received a pious training from his mother; and when he had ascended the throne, after the early death of his godless father, he was under the guidance of pious men who were faithfully devoted to the law of the Lord, and who turned his heart to the God of their fathers, as was the case with Joash in 2Ki 12:3, although there is no allusion to guardianship. His mother Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah, was of Boscath, a city in the plain of Judah, of which nothing further is known (see at Jos 15:39). The description of his character, “he turned not aside to the right hand and to the left,” sc. from that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, is based upon Deu 5:29; Deu 17:11, Deu 17:20, and Deu 28:14, and expresses an unwavering adherence to the law of the Lord.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Josiah’s Pious Reign; the Book of the Law Read. | B. C. 623. |
1 Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath. 2 And 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. 3 And 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, 4 Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the silver which is brought into the house of the LORD, which the keepers of the door have gathered of the people: 5 And let them deliver it into the hand of the doers of the work, that have the oversight of the house of the LORD: and let them give it to the doers of the work which is in the house of the LORD, to repair the breaches of the house, 6 Unto carpenters, and builders, and masons, and to buy timber and hewn stone to repair the house. 7 Howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand, because they dealt faithfully. 8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 9 And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the LORD. 10 And Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.
Concerning Josiah we are here told,
I. That he was very young when he began to reign (v. 1), only eight years old. Solomon says, Woe unto thee, O land! when thy king is a child; but happy art thou, O land! when thy king is such a child. Our English Israel had once a king that was such a child, Edward VI. Josiah, being young, had not received any bad impressions from the example of his father and grandfather, but soon saw their errors, and God gave his grace to take warning by them. See Ezek. xviii. 14, c.
II. That he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, <i>v. 2. See the sovereignty of divine grace–the father passed by and left to perish in his sin, the son a chosen vessel. See the triumphs of that grace–Josiah born of a wicked father, no good education nor good example given him, but many about him who no doubt advised him to tread in his father’s steps and few that gave him any good counsel, and yet the grace of God made him an eminent saint, cut him off from the wild olive and grafted him into the good olive, Rom. xi. 24. Nothing is too hard for that grace to do. He walked in a good way, and turned not aside (as some of his predecessors had done who began well) to the right hand nor to the left. There are errors on both hands, but God kept him in the right way; he fell neither into superstition nor profaneness.
III. That he took care for the repair of the temple. This he did in the eighteenth year of his reign, v. 3. Compare 2 Chron. xxxiv. 8. He began much sooner to seek the Lord (as appears, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 3), but it is to be feared the work of reformation went slowly on and met with much opposition, so that he could not effect what he desired and designed, till his power was thoroughly confirmed. The consideration of the time we unavoidably lost in our minority should quicken us, when we have come to years, to act with so much the more vigour in the service of God. Having begun late we have need work hard. He sent Shaphan, the secretary of state, to Hilkiah the high priest, to take an account of the money that was collected for this use by the door-keepers (v. 4); for, it seems, they took much the same way of raising the money that Joash took, ch. xii. 9. When people gave by a little at a time the burden was insensible, and, the contribution being voluntary, it was not complained of. This money, so collected, he ordered him to lay out for the repair of the temple, 2Ki 22:5; 2Ki 22:6. And now, it seems, the workmen (as in the days of Joash) acquitted themselves so well that there was no reckoning made with them (v. 7), which is certainly mentioned to the praise of the workmen, that they gained such a reputation for honesty, but whether to the praise of those that employed them I know not; a man should count money (we say) after his own father; it would not have been amiss to have reckoned with the workmen, that others also might be satisfied of their honesty.
IV. That, in repairing the temple, the book of the law was happily found and brought to the king, 2Ki 22:8; 2Ki 22:10. Some think this book was the autograph, or original manuscript, of the five books of Moses, under his own hand; others think it was only an ancient and authentic copy. Most likely it was that which, by the command of Moses, was laid up in the most holy place, Deut. xxxi. 24, c. 1. It seems, this book of the law was lost or missing. Perhaps it was carelessly mislaid and neglected, thrown by into a corner (as some throw their Bibles), by those that knew not the value of it, and forgotten there or it was maliciously concealed by some of the idolatrous kings, or their agents, who were restrained by the providence of God or their own consciences from burning and destroying it, but buried it, in hopes it would never see the light again; or, as some think, it was carefully laid up by some of its friends, lest it should fall into the hands of its enemies. Whoever were the instruments of its preservation, we ought to acknowledge the hand of God in it. If this was the only authentic copy of the Pentateuch then in being, which had (as I may say) so narrow a turn for its life and was so near perishing, I wonder the hearts of all good people did not tremble for that sacred treasure, as Eli’s for the ark, and I am sure we now have reason to thank God, upon our knees, for that happy providence by which Hilkiah found this book at this time, found it when he sought it not, Isa. lxv. 1. If the holy scriptures had not been of God, they would not have been in being at this day; God’s care of the Bible is a plain indication of his interest in it. 2. Whether this was the only authentic copy in being or no, it seems the things contained in it were new both to the king himself and to the high priest; for the king, upon the reading of it, rent his clothes. We have reason to think that neither the command for the king’s writing a copy of the law, nor that for the public reading of the law every seventh year (Deu 17:18; Deu 31:10; Deu 31:11), had been observed for a long time; and when the instituted means of keeping up religion are neglected religion itself will soon go to decay. Yet, on the other hand, if the book of the law was lost, it seems difficult to determine what rule Josiah went by in doing that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and how the priests and people kept up the rites of their religion. I am apt to think that the people generally took up with abstracts of the law, like our abridgements of the statutes, which the priests, to save themselves the trouble of writing and the people of reading the book at large, had furnished them with–a sort of ritual, directing them in the observances of their religion, but leaving out what they thought fit, and particularly the promises and threatenings (Lev 26:1-14; Deu 28:1-68, c.), for I observe that these were the portions of the law which Josiah was so much affected with (<i>v. 13), for these were new to him. No summaries, extracts, or collections, out of the Bible (though they may have their use) can be effectual to convey and preserve the knowledge of God and his will like the Bible itself. It was no marvel that the people were so corrupt when the book of the law was such a scarce thing among them; where that vision is not the people perish. Those that endeavoured to debauch them no doubt used all the arts they could to get that book out of their hands. The church of Rome could not keep up the use of images but by forbidding the use of the scripture. 3. It was a great instance of God’s favour, and a token for good to Josiah and his people, that the book of the law was thus seasonably brought to light, to direct and quicken that blessed reformation which Josiah had begun. It is a sign that God has mercy in store for a people when he magnifies his law among them and makes that honourable, and furnishes them with means for the increase of scripture-knowledge. The translating of the scriptures into vulgar tongues was the glory, strength, and joy of the Reformation from Popery. It is observable that they were about a good work, repairing the temple, when they found the book of the law. Those that do their duty according to their knowledge shall have their knowledge increased. To him that hath shall be given. The book of the law was an abundant recompence for all their care and cost about the repair of the temple. 4. Hilkiah the priest was exceedingly well pleased with the discovery. “O,” says he to Shaphan, “rejoice with me, for I have found the book of the law, eureka, eureka,—I have found, I have found, that jewel of inestimable value. Here, carry it to the king; it is the richest jewel of his crown. Read it before him. He walks in the way of David his father, and, if he be like him, he will love the book of the law and bid that welcome; that will be his delight and his counsellor.”
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Young Josiah Commentary on 2Ki 22:1-7 AND 2Ch 34:8-13
The brief introduction to young King Josiah in the Kings account corresponds to that studied above in the Chronicles passage. Kings, however, passes over the conversion of Josiah at age sixteen and his turn to reformation of Judah at age twenty. From there the two accounts are parallel. At age twenty-six, in his eighteenth year of reign, Josiah launched into a restoration of the temple.
What brought about this religious fervor and zeal on the part of Josiah, the son of a wicked father? Nothing more is known of Jedidah, his mother, and what influence she may have had on her son is impossible to say. It is an interesting consideration that the old king, Manasseh, Josiah’s grandfather, may have recouped some good in his life in respect to his little grandson. It is very likely that Manasseh may have controlled the upbringing of the princes. Though Josiah was very young the old king may have been shrewd enough to foresee how he might do a good work for the Lord by giving this child good tutors. Perhaps the old man and the little prince doted on each other like many old grandfathers and little grandsons.
But as he approached maturity Josiah became acquainted with a young man of the Levitical priest families, and they became fast friends. Jeremiah the prophet was of the approximate age as that of Josiah when he began his program of eradication of idolatry. Read the account of Jeremiah’s call in the first chapter of his prophecy. Note also the reference at 2Ch 35:25, where it is found that Jeremiah lamented at the untimely death of the king. Note also La 4:20, a possible revelation of the expectation Jeremiah hoped for in King Josiah.
Josiah turned the oversight of the temple restoration to Shaphan the scribe. Two others are associated with Shaphan in the Chronicles account. Shaphan was the king’s liaison with Hilkiah the high priest. He was to propose to him the king’s desire, that the money collected by the Levite doorkeepers be summed up and given to the men who would work for the restoration of the house of God. These included carpenters, builders, masons, artificers, and who could do any of the required work. With part of the money they were to purchase timber and hewn stone to fill up the breaches, repair the structure itself by erecting new beams (or couplings) and to install a new floor.
The Levitical overseers of the craftsmen represented several families of both the Merarites and the Kohathites. They were of such honorable reputation it was unnecessary. to make any reckoning of the money given them for the work. This is a great example for all those who profess the name of Christ today (see 2Co 8:20-21). These Levitical overseers were over the burdenbearers and the craftsmen, and were from the ranks of the scribes, officers, porters, and the musicians.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE LAST EFFORT OF REFORMATION UNDER JOSIAH
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
2Ki. 22:2. He did that which was rightIn his minority Josiah was. guarded and directed by godly teachers and counselors. Yet training is not to be wholly accredited with the difference between Manasseh and Josiah, who both, during their minority, must have been under tutors and governors. The natural bent of disposition is a factor in reckoning; and yet further, the sovereign operation of Gods grace. 2Ki. 22:3-7. The repair of the templeFor 250 years, since the reign of Jehoash (2Ki. 12:5), the fabric had been allowed to decay. Besides Shaphan the scribe here mentioned, Chronicles adds Maaseiah the city governor, and Joah the chancellor (2Ch. 34:8); for the work was not to be a private undertaking by the king and priests, but civic and national.
2Ki. 22:8. Hilkiah the high priest said I have found the book of the lawThe temple roll was ordered to be kept by the side of the ark (Deu. 31:26), but during the idolatrous profanations under Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon, the very ark had been removed (comp. 2Ch. 35:3) from the house; and doubtless in this way the book had become lost. Dr. Bhr notes that is here emphatic, and does not mean to fall in with something which is known to be somewhere at hand, but to discover what was concealed. It would seem that the written law of God had passed from human knowledge, lost in the haze of heathenism, which had so long enveloped the land. Although this finding of the book of the law does not imply that the nation or the priests had no other copy, yet the narrative clearly indicates that king and people were strangers to its contents. Shaphan the scribe read it (2Ki. 22:8) as if it were a new thing come to hand. He moreover read it before the king (2Ki. 22:10) as being an unknown book to the monarch, and deserving his attention; whereas the effect its words produced upon Josiah plainly show that he heard them then for the first time (2Ki. 22:11). Controversy is keen as to what this book was; whether only a section of the Pentateuchi.e., the book of Deuteronomyof the complete book of the law of Moses. Hilkiah calls it . the book of the law, the technical form of expression distinctive of the entire Pentateuch. Shaphan, however, speaks of it to the king as a book (2Ki. 22:10), without describing it in any way further. Hilkiahs emphatic word, the book, implies that either no other copy had been known to exist, or that this copy was different from, more complete, than any other possessed. And the latter alternative meaning of his words gives opportunity for the theory that Deuteronomy was then first seen by them, for Deuteronomy contains just those searching words which would lead the king to distress. But if other copies existed, and Deuteronomy were an appendage, comparison would soon have led to the rejection of this spurious addition to the book as Moses left it. The natural meaning is that the written law had been lost, its substance meanwhile only existing in memory, or as a tradition; but that now the very Word of God was found.
2Ki. 22:11. When the king had heard the wordsShaphan did not read the entire book, but read therein, (2Ch. 34:18); and if Deuteronomy were read (see chaps. 27, 28) there would be found sufficient there to account for Josiahs alarm (comp. 2Ki. 5:18).
2Ki. 22:14. Huldah the prophetess (now she dwelt in Jerusalem)This fact of her being accessible accounts sufficiently for their seeking her. Jeremiah, the conspicuous prophet of Josiahs reign, who for five years had been witnessing for Jehovah against His godless nation (for he began his work in the thirteenth year of Josiahs reign, see Jer. 1:2, while this finding the law occurred in the eighteenth year) lived at that time in Anathoth in Benjamin. Of Huldah we know nothing beyond what this incident reveals. Her husband was keeper of the wardrobe, more probably of the priests garments than of the royal wardrobe, and she dwelt in the college, rather, in the other part, or the lower city. 2Ki. 22:15-20. Gods denunciations should have absolute fulfilment, albeit Josiah should be spared seeing them, because his heart was tender, and he had humbled himself before the Lord.W. H. J.
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 22:1-18
THE AWAKENING POWER OF THE DIVINE WORD
I. That it is a great national calamity when the Divine Word is neglected and forgotten. For more than half a century the influence of idolatry, in its grossest aspects, reigned supreme in Judah. The apostate people ignored the Divine law, which accused them too faithfully of their sins. By many it was forgotten, and treated as if it did not exist. Only a few of the faithfulthe prophets and some of the better classeswould possess a copy. The guiding star of the nation was quenched; and the people grovelled in ever deepening darkness. The state, like a rudderless vessel, drifted into anarchy and crime. The Bibleread, studied, lovedis a nations blessing, and its absence a national calamity. Napoleon, with true insight, placed the Bible in the political division of his library; and he who faithfully teaches the contents of that book, gives to the world its fairest, happiest shape.
II. That the most striking discoveries of the Divine Word are often made in connection with the Temple. No repairs of any moment had been done to the Temple since the days of Joashmore than two hundred years before. One of the first acts of Josiah was to restore the mutilated building and purge it of its idolatrous abuses. In the progress of this laudable work, the Divine Law was formed, probably in the hand-writing of Moses; and this discovery had an important influence upon the succeeding efforts of religious reform. And is it not in connection with the work of the Temple that we have first sighted our freshest, most awe-inspiring, and most abiding views of Divine truth? The Bible has become another book to us, in its flashes of celestial light and openings of profound depths, as we have enquired in the Temple.
III. That the declarations of the Divine Word awaken the deepest interest and concern in the mind of the sincere seeker after truth. The Bible has an interest all its own to the antiquarian, the historian, and the philosophic critic; but it comes with a piercing significance and manifold suggestiveness to the man who is in quest of the highest truth. Josiah was singularly prepared for the revelation vouchsafed to him. His mind was keenly alert in its receptiveness; hence the profound, alarming impression created by the Divine record. The Bible will be a closed or open book to us according to the spirit we bring to its study. To the cold, scoffing sceptic it is a dumb Sphinx, refusing to utter its secrets; to the humble, earnest student, it sparkles with the radiance of a palace of gems. Its threatenings may well terrify, for they are true; and its promises soothe the distress its denunciations cause.
IV. That a mind awakened by the Divine Word is emboldened to undertake the most difficult work of reform. Whatever dim visions of reform Josiah may have cherished before, it is noticeable that from the moment he became acquainted with the mind of God as contained in the discovered book, his efforts after reformation amounted to a passion. He saw it to be the one work of his life, and he entered into it with a zeal, a determination, a thoroughness that might be accused of violence. It was a desperate attempt to reverse, if possible, the threatened doom of Judah. It is in the light and teaching of Gods word that our life-work becomes most clearly defined to us. Here we learn what sacrifices must be made, what points must be guarded, what work is worthy of our powers and possible for us to do, and where to find the source of inspiration and strength in every struggle.
LESSONS:
1. The light of the Divine Word cannot be permanently obscured.
2. The Divine word is the surest guide amid national defection and error.
3. The Divine word supplies the most potent motives in all aggressive reforms.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki. 22:1-2. Josiah, the kingly reformer: an example of youthful piety. For many reasons, Josiah is one of the most interesting characters in Old Testament history. The son and successor of a weak and worthless king, he was a mere child when called by the unanimous voice of the nation to the throne. He is remarkable as having been the most faultless of all the kings of Judah or Israel; and his reign is remarkable for the thorough and wide-spread national reformation, of which he was the moving cause. His premature death, at the age of thirty-nine, may be said to have brought to a close the prosperity of the kingdom of Judah. The reign of this prince is like a gleam cast from a lowering sky before it bursts with the tempest. Under his government Judah rose only to fall with greater violence afterwards (Evans). None of her kings had been more deservedly beloved; none was more tenderly lamented. The prophet Jeremiah, who flourished during the greater part of his reign, composed his funeral elegy, and for ages afterwards his memory was cherished with the fondest regret. The author of the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus indulges in this glowing panegyric (chap. Sir. 49:1-4):The remembrance of Josias is like the composition of the perfume that is made by the art of the apothecary; it is sweet as honey in all mouths, and as music at the banquet of wine. He behaved himself uprightly in the conversion of the people, and took away the abomination of iniquity. He directed his heart unto the Lord, and in the time of the ungodly he established the worship of God. All, except David, and Hezekiah, and Josias, were defective. To have perpetuated such tender regards in the hearts of the Jewish nation for so long a period, and to be spoken of to this day as the Timothy of the Old Testament, the pattern of youthful piety, and of reverence for Gods wordthe last good king of Judah must have been no ordinary man. The records of the first half of his comparatively brief life are very scanty, yet they contain some points worthy of note. We have here
1. A child king;
2. A boy-king seeking God;
3. A youthful royal reformer.
1. He was the good son of a wicked father. We see Hezekiah, a most pious king, succeeded by Manasseh, by far the most abandoned prince who ever sat on the throne of David. But in Josiah we have a root out of a dry ground. Young persons who are seeking to live a godly life under unfavourable circumstances, in an irreligious or careless family, among ungodly companions, should take comfort and courage from the case of Josiah, whose fathers influence and example, in so far as they could be impressed on one so young, were wholly evil.
2. It is probable that the bias of his mind towards religion was due to maternal training. The only notice of his mother is a very brief one, and nothing definite is recorded as to her influence upon his earliest years; but considering that even though a king, he was too young to dispense with a mothers care and training, and that twenty years of his life were passed in comparative privacy, may we not reasonably infer that the seeds of religious instruction dropped from a mothers hand into his young mind, bore fruit many days after in personal decision for God, and national reformation? A mothers influence, in a religious point of view, cannot be over-estimated.
3. We see this early training bearing fruit in due season in what would have been spoken of as his conversion: While he was yet young (viz., at 16 years of age), He began to seek after the God of David, his father. Religion became to him what it must become to alla matter of personal concern. His fathers wickedness would not condemn, nor his mothers piety avail to save, him. Amos saw his father Manasseh penitent and forgiven when he was old, but did not copy his example. Josiah was the son of ungodly Amon, and yet he became a godly child. Grace is not hereditary like houses, and lands, and titles. Piety does not run in the blood. Religion is a personal matter. Every one shall give account of himself unto God. The salvation of a father does not bear his son into heaven; the loss of a parent in his own sin does not tear away his converted child from the love of God.Arnot.
(4) The piety of Josiah was developed in spite of unfavourable surroundings.The people were surely deteriorating; sinking lower and lower in the social and moral degradations inseparable from the cruel and licentious forms of worship to which they were so fatally addicted. Idolatry had eaten into the heart and life of the nation (Venables). Yet this awful condition of national life did not lead Josiah to swim with the current. Single handed he resolved to stem the tide of national ungodliness. Instead of becoming the creature of circumstances, he rose to the occasion, and became their master. Personal piety was followed up by religious zeal. It needed courage to declare himself on the Lords side, when the whole current of the nations life was sweeping on in an entirely opposite direction. This is the true order. Personal piety first; zeal for the religious welfare of others next. Like charity, piety must begin at home, if it is to be of any value in a wider sphere.
5. He begins the work of a religious reformer. Acting as only Eastern monarchs can, he set about ridding the country of every trace of idolatry (Geikie). He had now the authority fairly in his own hands, and displayed independence of action. His great design was to extirpate idolatry, and restore the religion of Jehovah. The desperate case of the nation demanded stringent measures. The pagan worship was uprooted with the same punctilious care as that which, during the Paschal season, the houses of Israelites were to be cleansed from every morsel of leaven. Every instrument or image, if of wood, was burnt; if of metal or stone, was shattered to pieces and ground to powder (Stanley.) Notice, as to this reformation(a) It was personally superintended. He made a tour throughout his kingdom, and even beyond it (2Ch. 34:6). At least six years were occupied in this work. It could not be done in a moment; it would not have been done thoroughly had he not been present, lending th weight of his example and authority. Work for God is best done, as a rule, when done in person. (b) It was perseveringly carried on. Though carried out with zeal, and even severity, the work could not be accomplished all at once. The very act of destroying every idol, and exterminating the idolatrous priests, which would require a minute search into every remote dwelling, would necessarily occupy much time. But probably, in addition to this, Josiah had to encounter much obstinacy. All who know anything of human nature must be aware how very difficult it is to cleanse the fountain of mens minds, and force the stream from a defiled to a purer channel (The History of JosiahAnonLond., 1842.) In spite of the unfriendly spirit of the bulk of the nation, cheered only perhaps by a single prophet, Josiah persevered in his arduous, but necessary, work of destruction. There is need not only of courage, but of perseverance in the Lords work still, (c) It was brought to a successful issue. The six years labour were not in vain. The country was, for the time being, effectually cleansed, leaving Josiah free to turn his attention to the condition of the temple at Jerusalem. Though his work can scarcely find its exact parallel in modern times, and under the more benignant dispensation of Christ, Josiahs spirit of persevering zeal against all evil may well be copied by Christian workers.
GENERAL LESSONS:
(1) The possibility and the beauty of early piety. Josiah, Joseph, Samuel, Obadiah, Timothy.
(2) Seeking and finding God early saves from many evils, and ensures many blessings.
3. The most useful Christians are generally those who have sought the Lord in their early days. Did not Josiahs early piety help him to the formation of a strong, earnest, godly, useful manhood? Oh! let no young life be tempted to say:
I am too youngthe stirring voice of morning,
Calls me to wander gaily while I may;
My heart leaps up, restraint and task-work scorning:
Not now the hard won steepthe narrow way.
When time shall bring my treasures desolation,
And no more sweetness in lifes cup shall be,
The bitter dregs will do for a libation
To Him who died for me.
Hom. Quarterly.
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.Lange.
2Ki. 22:2. Josiah an example for young men.
I. The piety of Josiah as illustrative of the power of a good example. He walked in all the ways of David his father. Few influences are more powerful than that of example. The child imitates his parent; the school-boy his class-mate; the youth his play-fellows; and soon, through every stage of life. Note in what recorded actions of Josiah there were marks of an imitation of Davids example.
1. The first of these in order of time was his attachment to Gods house and his devotion to Gods service. When he had purged the land of idols, he gave directions for the repair of the Temple. For this object the people contributed liberally; incited thereto by the example of their princes, and especially of their young king. Josiahs acts remind us of Davids preparation for the building of the Temple.
2. His love to the word of God. Turn to the narrative in 2Ch. 34:14-21. David said of the man who is blessed, that his delight is in the law of God. There is no book more valuable to the young. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by giving heed thereto according to thy word. What boy is not delighted with stories of enterprise and adventure? Where can more entrancing ones be found than which tell of Israels war, the prophets dangers, and Pauls travels? What youth does not love poetry? And what are Milton and all his compeerswhat their writingsto the poetry of the Hebrew bards?
3. His reverence for Godly men. See Chap. 2Ki. 23:15-18. We know enough of Davids life to recognize in this respect for a man of God an imitation of his example. The servants are to be revered; to be esteemed very highly for their works sake. Goodness is always worthy of regard, and he who does not respect it tells us that he has no goodness in himself to be respected.
II. The piety of Josiah as illustrative of the strict intregrity of godliness. He turned not aside to the right hand, nor to the left. The man of the world may turn his creed, and shape his course according to the fashion of the varying hour; but not the Christian. He must bear in mind the words of wisdom: Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee.
1. Josiah was not influenced by the force of ancient custom, when that custom ran counter to the course pointed out by conscience. Amidst all the idolatry already referred to, the Temple service was still performedbut slovenly, disgracefully, repulsively. Josiah said this should be so no longer. His reforms, depend upon it, were cried out against as innovations. The service had been good enough for his seniors: why were they not good enough for him? Because they were not good enough for his God; and, heedless of fault-finding, and complaining, and backbiting, and all the usual resources of the followers of ancient custom, he had the Temple repaired, and the sacrifices slain, and the singers and skilled musicians employed, and the porters waiting at the Temple gate; and all was done according to that which was written in the law of the Lord.
2. He was not influenced by any feeling of false shame. When the book of the law was found and read before him, he rent his clothes, feeling that he was a sinner. Calling his servants, he said: Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for them that are left, &c. Many are turned away from the way of God for fear of others. This is especially the danger of young people, who shrink from ridicule. Remember that those who honour God, He will honour.
III. The piety of Josiah illustrates the course of life that ensures Divine approval. He did that which was right in the sight of God. It is comparatively easy to pursue a course that seems right to ourselves, or that may secure the applause of the world. It is a widely-different matter so to live as to ensure the approval and commendation of God.
1. By far the greater part of men seem to live for self. They have no care or consideration for others. Selfishness is the vilest principle that ever spread in this world.
2. Others care most about the approval of the world. These are selfish, too. It is because that applause is gratifying to their selfish vanity. The man who would lick the dust to secure the favour of a fellow mortal would sacrifice his dearest friend for gain.
3. They only are God like who do and love that which is holy and true; who live not for themselves, but for others and for God.
APPLICATION:
Have an object in life! Live! Do not be content with mere existence. Remember, there is but one unfailing condition of true greatness, and that isgoodness.
Lifes more than breath and the quick round of blood:
It is a great spirit, and a busy heart.
He most lives
Who thinks mostfeels the noblestacts the best.
The Study and Pulpit.
2Ki. 22:3-8. The restoration of Gods House.
1. Is prompted by a devout and generous love for the sanctuary.
2. Is carried on with enthusiasm and fidelity by those whose hearts are in the work.
3. May be the occasion of making important discoveries of truth.
How well doth it beseem the care of a religious prince to set the priests and scribes in hand with re-edifying the Temple! The command is the kings, the charge is the high priests, the execution is the workmens. When the labourers are faithful in doing the work, and the high priest in directing it, and the king in enjoining it, Gods house cannot fail of a happy perfection; but when any of these slackens, the business must needs languish.Bp. Hall.
2Ki. 22:7. Honesty.
1. A strong recommendation for work requiring trust and responsibility.
2. Can afford to dispense with count and reckoning.
3. Should not be less honest by keeping strictest count and reckoning.
4. Ought not to be unnecessarily tempted.
2Ki. 22:8. The preservation of the Holy Scriptures.
1. One of the most marvellous features of their history.
2. Accomplished, notwithstanding unfaithfulness of custodians, jealousy of sects, and fierce attacks of numerous enemies.
3. A strong collateral proof of their Divine character.
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 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. The discovery of the book was a pledge to the king and people of the indestructibility of the Divine written word.Lange.
It is hard for us to realize the full force of this discovery. We can scarcely conceive of a state of things in which, during centuries of the nominal establishment of Christianity, the people should still observe solemn festivals at the old sites of Druidical worship, the altars of Thor and Woden and Freya should smoke with sacrifices in every city, town, and village; their statues be set up in our cathedrals, and the heights round London should be crowned with the temples of Sivah and Juggernaut, all this lasting for centuries, with an occasional and partial return to the purer form of worship, while the Bible, never multiplied by printing, and only known in older and purer times through infrequent readings by the clergy, should have been utterly lost and forgotten. Add to this the supposition that the lost volume contained, not the dark symbols of the apocalypse, but the clear warning of national destruction and captivity to befal us because of these idolatries, and then let us imagine our feelings on its sudden discovery. No wonder that Josiah rent his clothes, and could not rest till he found a prophet too xpound these terrible denunciations!Dr. Smiths Student Scripture History.
What a shame is it that Bibles, now so common, are so little set by amongst us, when our devout forefathers would have purchased some few chapters at a great rate! It is a sad complaint that Moulin makes of the French Protestants; whilst they burnt us, says he, for reading the scriptures, we burnt with zeal to be reading them. Now with our liberty is bred also negligence and disesteem of Gods word.Trapp.
2Ki. 22:11. O gracious tenderness of Josiah! He does but once hear the law read, and is thus humbled; humbled for his fathers sins, for the sins of his people. How many of us, after a thousand hammerings of the menaces of Gods law upon our guilty souls, continue yet insensible of our danger! The very reading of this law thus affects him, the preaching of it stirs not us; the sins of others struck thus deep with him, our own are slighted by us. A soft heart is the best tempered for God. So physicians are wont to like those bodies best which are easiest to work upon O God! make our clay wax, and our wax pliable to thine hand, so shall we be sure to be free either from sin, or from the hurt of sin.Bp. Hall.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
III. THE REIGN AND REFORMATION OF JOSIAH 22:1-23:27
In view of the corrupt conduct of his father and grandfather, it is surprising that Josiah determined at such an early age to follow the path of righteousness. It has been suggested that the prophet Zephaniah may have exercised considerable influence on the young lad after the assassination of his father. After (1) a brief introduction to his reign (2Ki. 22:1-2), the author describes various developments in the last great reformation in Judah: (2) the Temple repair (2Ki. 22:3-7); (3) the discovery of a lost law-book (2Ki. 22:8-13); (4) the prophetic threat of Huldah (2Ki. 22:14-20); (5) the renewal of the covenant (2Ki. 23:1-3); (6) the intensification of the reformation (2Ki. 23:4-23). To this discussion the author adds (7) an appraisal of the Josianic reformation (2Ki. 23:24-27).
A. INTRODUCTION TO THE REIGN OF JOSIAH 22:12
TRANSLATION
(1) Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-one years; and the name of his mother was Jedidah the daughter of Adaiah of Boseath. (2) And he did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD and he walked in all the ways of David his father and did not deviate to the right or to the left.
Fifteenth King of Judah
JOSIAH BEN AMON
640609 B.C.
(Supported by Yabweb)
2 Kings 22-25; 2 Chronicles 34-35
Contemporary Prophets
Jeremiah; Zephaniah; Huldah
Nahum; Habakkuk
Mother: Jedidah
Appraisal: Excellent
A wise king scatters the wicked, and brings the wheel over them.
Proverbs 20:26
COMMENTS
Josiah was only eight years old when he began to reign. This would mean, since his father died at age twenty-four, that Josiah was born when his father was only sixteen years old. Josiah reigned thirty-one years, from 640 to 609 B.C. (2Ki. 22:1). This was one of the most important periods of world history. The mighty Assyrian empire was crumbling, and the Median and Chaldean empires were forming. It was providential that during this crucial period of history a godly king sat on the throne of David. Concerning Josiah the author of Kings uses an expression used of only one other king, King Hezekiah. He says Josiah did that which was right in the sight of the Lord and walked in all the way of David his father. He never deviated from the right path (2Ki. 22:2).
Josiah, according to the Chronicler, began his reform movement in the eighth year of his reign, and that movement gained momentum in his twelfth year (628 B.C.).[639] At that time the pious young king began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the Asherim and carved images and molten images (2Ch. 34:3). The next year Jeremiah the prophet began his ministry which must have given powerful impetus to the kings reform efforts. The reformation reached its climax in the eighteenth year of Josiah (621 B.C.).
[639] The reformation may have proceeded in stages so as to test the reaction of Assyria, which would doubtlessly have regarded such reform as tantamount to rebellion.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XXII.
THE REIGN OF JOSIAH (2 Kings 22, 2Ki. 23:30; comp. 2 Chronicles 24, 25)
(1) Josiah.The name seems to mean Jah healeth. (Comp. Exo. 15:26; Isa. 30:26.)
Eight years old.The queen-mother was probably paramount in the government during the first years of the reign.
Boscath.In the lowland of Judah (Jos. 15:39).
He reigned thirty and one years.And somewhat over. (Comp. Jer. 1:2; Jer. 25:1; Jer. 25:3; according to which passages it was twenty-three years from the thirteenth of Josiah to the fourth of Jehoiakim.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
INTRODUCTION TO JOSIAH’S REIGN, 2Ki 22:1-2.
1. Josiah A name forever honoured in Jewish history.
Eight years old Born when his father was sixteen years old. Compare 2Ki 21:19. On the early maturity of persons in the East, see note on 2Ki 18:2. His mother was probably queen-regent during the earlier years of his reign. Boscath is the same as Bozkath in the plain of Judah, apparently between Lachish and Eglon, (Jos 15:39,) but its site has not been identified.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Introduction to Josiah’s Reign ( 2Ki 22:1-2 ).
Josiah’s reign commences with the usual introductory formula giving his age when he began to reign, the length of his reign, and the name of the queen mother, followed by a verdict on his reign, which in this case was exemplary.
2Ki 22:1
‘Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Jedidah the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath.’
The early assassination of Amon resulted in Josiah coming to the throne at a very early age, with the result that he was only eight years old when he began to reign, and he then reigned for thirty one years, dying in battle at the age of thirty nine. The name of the queen mother, whose status in Judah was seen as very important, was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah. Jedidah means ‘beloved’. The name Adaiah is found on seals that have been excavated. Bozkath lay between Lachish and Eglon (Jos 15:39). The purpose of the marriage may well have been in order to seal the relationship between Jerusalem and the border cities in the Shephelah, some of which like Libnah saw themselves as semi-independent (2Ki 8:22).
2Ki 22:2
‘And he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, and walked in all the way of David his father, and did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.’
The verdict on his reign was exceptional, for not only did he do what was right in the eyes of YHWH without reservation (he even removed the high places), but he also did not turn aside ‘to right or left’ (compare 2Ki 18:3). In other words he was unwavering in his faithfulness to YHWH.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Ki 22:1 to 2Ki 23:30 The Reign of Josiah Over Judah (640-609 B.C.) 2Ki 22:1 to 2Ki 23:30 records the account of the reign of Josiah over Judah. He was one of the few good kings who reigned over this nation.
2Ki 22:7 Howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand, because they dealt faithfully.
2Ki 22:7
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Josiah’s Good Reign
v. 1. Josiah was eight years old, v. 2. And 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; v. 3. And 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, v. 4. Go up to Hilkiah, the high priest, that he may sum the silver, v. 5. and let them deliver it into the hand of the doers of the work, that have the oversight of the house of the Lord, v. 6. unto carpenters and builders and masons, and to buy timber and hewn stone to repair the house. v. 7. Howbeit, there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand because they dealt faithfully; v. 8. And Hilkiah, the high priest, v. 9. And Shaphan, the scribe, came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was found in the house,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Ki 22:1-20
ACCESSION OF JOSIAH. REPAIR OF THE TEMPLE. RECOVERY OF THE BOOK OF THE LAW.
2Ki 22:1-7
GENERAL CHARACTER OF JOSIAH‘S REIGN. His repair of the temple. The writer begins his account of Josiah’s reign with the usual brief summary, giving his age at his accession, the length of his reign, his mother’s name and birthplace (2Ki 22:1), and the general character of his rule (2Ki 22:2). He then proceeds to mention some circumstances connected with the repair of the temple, which Josiah had taken in hand (2Ki 22:3-7).
2Ki 22:1
Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign. So the writer of Chronicles (2Ch 34:1) and Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.4. 1). He must have been born, therefore, when his father was no more than sixteen years of age, and Amen must have married when he was only fifteen. And he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. Probably from B.C. 640 to B.C. 609a most important period of the world’s history, including, as it does,
(1) the great Scythic invasion;
(2) the fall of Assyria;
(3) the formation of the Median empire; and the foundation of the Babylonian empire by Nabopolasar.
And his mother’s name was Jedidahi.e. “Darling”the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath. Boscath is mentioned as among the cities of Judah (Jos 15:39). It lay in the Shefelah (Jos 15:33), not far from Lachish and Eglon. The recent explorers of Palestine identify it with the modern Um-el-Bikar, two miles and a half southeast of Ajlun (Eglon). (See the ‘Map of Western Palestine,’ published by Mr. Trelawny Saunders.)
2Ki 22:2
And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in an the way of David his father. This is a stronger expression than any which has been used of any previous king of Judah except Hezekiah, and indicates a very high degree of approval. The son of Sirach says of Josiah, “The remembrance of Josias is like the composition of the perfume that is made by the art of the apothecary: it is sweet as honey in all mouths, and as music at a banquet of wine. He behaved himself uprightly in the conversion of the people, and took away the abominations of iniquity. He directed his heart unto the Lord, and in the time of the ungodly he established the worship of God. All, except David and Ezekias and Josias, were defective: for they forsook the Law of the Most High, even the kings of Judah failed” (see Ecclesiasticus 49:1-4). And turned not aside to the right hand or to the left; i.e. he never deviated from the right path (comp. Deu 5:32; Deu 17:11, Deu 17:20; Deu 28:14; Jos 1:7; Jos 23:6).
2Ki 22:3
And it came to pass in the eighteenth year of King Josiah. The writer of Kings, bent on abbreviating as much as possible, omits the early reforms of Josiah, which are related in 2Ch 34:3-7, with perhaps some anticipation of what happened later. The young king gave marked indications of personal piety and attachment to true religion as early as the eighth year of his reign, when he was sixteen, and had just attained his majority. Later, in his twelfth year, he began the purging of the temple and of Jerusalem, at the same time probably commencing the repairs spoken of in 2Ch 34:9. Jeremiah’s prophesying, begun in the same or in the next year (Jer 1:2), must have been a powerful assistance to his reformation. That the king sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the house of the Lord, saying. Shaphan held the office, which Shebna had held in the later part of Hezekiah’s reign (2Ki 18:18), an office of much importance and dignity. According to the author of Chronicles (2Ch 34:8), there were associated with him on this occasion two other personages of importance, viz. Maaseiah, the governor of the city, and Joah the son of Joahaz, the “recorder,” or “remembrancer.”
2Ki 22:4
Go up to Hilkiah the high priest. Hilkiah is mentioned again in the genealogy of Ezra (Ezr 7:1). He is there called “the son of Shallum.” That he may sum the silver which is brought into the house of the Lord. A collection must have been progressing for some time. As in the reign of Joash, after the impieties and idolatry of Athaliah, it was found necessary to collect money for the repair of the temple (2Ki 12:4-14), so now, after the wicked doings of Manasseh and Amen, a renovation of the sacred building was required, and the money needed was being raised by a collection. Great care was taken in all such cases that an exact account should be kept and rendered. Which the keepers of the doorliterally, of the thresholdhave gathered of the people. The money had, apparently, been allowed to accumulate in a box or boxes (see 2Ki 12:9), from the time when the collection was first authorized, probably six years previously. The high priest was now required to count it, to take the sum of it, and undertake the distribution.
2Ki 22:5
And let them deliver it into the hand of the doers of the work, that have the oversight of the house of the Lord. The “doers that have the oversight” are not the actual workmen, but the superintendents or overseers of the workmen, who hired them, looked after them, and paid them. And let them give it to the doers of the work which is in the house of the Lordlet the overseers, i.e; give out the money to the actual workmen, the carpenters, etc; of the next verseto repair the breaches of the house; rather, the dilapidation of the house. It is not implied that any violence had been used, such as is required to make a “breach.” The “house” had simply been allowed to fall into disrepair.
2Ki 22:6
Unto carpenters, and builders, and masons, and to buy timber, and hewn stone to repair the house. The money had to be expended, partly in labor, partly in materials. The materials consisted of both wood and stone, since it was of these that Solomon’s temple had been built (see 1Ki 5:18; 1Ki 6:7, 1Ki 6:9, 1Ki 6:10, 1Ki 6:15, 1Ki 6:36).
2Ki 22:7
Howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand, because they dealt faithfully. The superintendents or overseers were persons of position, in whom full confidence was placed. Their names are given in 2Ch 34:12. They were, all of them, Levites.
2Ki 22:8-14
Discovery of the book of the Law. When Shaphan had transacted with Hilkiah the business entrusted to him by the king, Hilkiah took the opportunity of sending word by him to the king with respect to a discovery that he had recently made, during the investigations connected with the repairs. He had found a book, which he called without any doubt or hesitation, “the book of the Law” and this book he put into the hands of Shaphan, who “read it,” i.e. some of it, and found it of such importance that he took it back with him to the palace, and read a portion to the king. Hereupon the king “rent his clothes,” and required that special inquiry should be made of the Lord concerning the words of the book, and particularly concerning the threatenings contained in it. The persons entrusted with this task thought it best to lay the matter before Huldah, a prophetess, who lived in Jerusalem at the time, and proceeded to confer with her at her residence.
2Ki 22:8
And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the Law in the house of the Lord. There has been great difference of opinion as to what it was which Hilkiah had found. Ewald believes it to have been the Book of Deuteronomy, which had, he thinks, been composed some thirty or forty years before in Egypt by a Jewish exile, and had found its way, by a sort of chance, into Palestine, where “some priest“ had placed a copy of it in the temple. Thenius suggests “a collection of the laws and ordinances of Moses, which was afterwards worked up into the Pentateuch;” Bertheau, “the three middle books of the Pentateuch, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers;” Gramberg, “Exodus by itself.” But there seem to be no sufficient grounds for questioning the ancient opinionthat of Josephus, and of the Jews generallythat it was a copy of the entire Pentateuch.. The words, , “the book of the Law,” are really sufficient to decide the point; since, as Keil says, they “cannot mean anything else, either grammatically or historically, than the Mosaic book of the Law (the Pentateuch), which is so designated, as is generally admitted, in the Chronicles and the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.” The same conclusion follows from the expression, “the book of the covenant” ( ), in 2Ki 23:2, and also from 2Ki 23:24, 2Ki 23:25, and 2Ch 34:14. Whether or no the copy was the actual original deposited in the ark of the covenant by Moses (Deu 31:26), as Keil believes, is doubtful. As Egyptian manuscripts which are from three to four thousand years old still exist in good condition, there can be no reason why a manuscript of Moses’ time should not have been found and have been legible in Josiah’s. But, if not the actual handwriting of Moses, it was probably its lineal descendantthe copy made for the temple service, and kept ordinarily “in the side of the ark”which may well have been lost in the time of Manasseh or Amen, and which was now happily “found.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. We need not suppose that Shaphan read the whole. But he read enough to show him how important the work was, and how necessary it was to make it known to the king.
2Ki 22:9
And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was in the house (see above, 2Ki 22:4-6), and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the Lord; i.e. “We have carried out the king’s orders exactly, in every particular.”
2Ki 22:10
And Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. Shaphan does not venture to-characterize the book, as Hilkiah has done. He is not officially learned in the Law. And he has only read a few passages of it. To him, therefore, it is only “a book,” the authorship and value of which he leaves it to others to determine. And Shaphan read it before the king. It is most natural to understand hero, as in 2Ki 22:8, that Shaphan read portions of the book. Where the author intends to say that the whole book was read, he expresses himself differently (see 2Ki 23:2, “The king read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant”).
2Ki 22:11
And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the Law, that he rent his clothes. To Josiah the book was evidently, as to Hilkiah, in some sort a discovery. It was not, however, a wholly new thing; rather, he accepted it as the recovery of a thing that was known to have been lost, and was now happily found. And in accepting it he regarded it as authoritative. It was not to him “a book of Law” (Ewald), but “the book of the Law.” We can well imagine that, although the book may have been lost early in Manasseh’s reign, yet echoes of it had lingered on
(1) in the liturgies of the Jehovistic worship;
(2) in the teachings of the prophets;
(3) in the traditional teaching of religious families; so that the pious ear recognized its phrases as familiar.
It is also probable that there were external tokens about the book indicative of its character, which caused its ready acceptance.
2Ki 22:12
And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan. “Ahikam the son of Shaphan” is almost certainly Jeremiah’s protector at the court of Jehoiakim (Jer 26:24), the father of the Godaliah who wan made governor of Judaea on Nebuchadnezzar’s final conquest (Jer 39:14; Jer 40:7). “Shaphan;’ his father, is no doubt “Shaphan the scribe.” And Achbor the son of Michaiah. The parallel passage of Chronicles (2Ch 34:20) has “Abdon the son of Micah,” which is probably a corrupt reading. Achbor was the father of El-nathan, one of the “princes of Judah” (Jer 36:12) in Jehoiakim’s reign. And Shaphan the scribe, and Asa-hiah a servant of the king’sor Asaiah, as the name is given in Chronicles, l.s.c.saying,
2Ki 22:13
Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me. Inquiry of the Lord, which from the time of Moses to that of David was ordinarily “by Urim and Thummim,” was after David’s time always made by the consultation of a prophet (see 1Ki 22:5-8; 2Ki 3:11; 2Ki 8:8; Jer 21:2; Jer 37:7; Eze 14:7; Eze 20:1, etc.). The officers, therefore, understood the king to mean that they were to seek out a prophet (see 2Ki 22:14), and so make the inquiry. And for the people, and for all Judahthe threats read in the king’s ears were probably those of Deu 28:15-68 or Le Deu 26:16 -39, which extended to the whole peopleconcerning the words of this book that is found. Not “whether they are authentic, whether they are really the words of Moses” (Duneker), for of that Josiah appears to have had no doubt; but whether they are words that are to have an immediate fulfillment, “whether,” as Yon Gerlach says, “the measure of sin is already full, or whether there is yet hope of grace?” (compare Huldah’s answer in Deu 26:16 -20, which shows what she understood the king’s inquiry to be). For great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us. Josiah recognized that Judah had done, and was still doing, exactly those things against which the threatenings of the Law were directedbad forsaken Jehovah and gone after other gods, and made to themselves high places, and set up images, and done after the customs of the nations whom the Lord had cast out before them. He could not, therefore, doubt but that the wrath of the Lord “was kindled;” but would it blaze forth at once? Because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us. Josiah assumes that their fathers have had the book, and might have known its words, either because he conceives that it had not been very long lost, or because he regards them as having possessed other copies.
2Ki 22:14
So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahi-ham, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asa-hiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah. The principal prophets at or very near the time were Jeremiah, whose mission had commenced in Josiah’s thirteenth year (Jer 1:2) and Zephaniah, the son of Cushi, whose prophecy appears by internal evidence to have belonged to the earliest part of Josiah’s reign. It might have been expected that the matter would have been laid before one of these two persons. Possibly, however, neither of them was at Jerusalem. Jeremiah’s early home was Anathoth, and Zephaniah may have finished his course before Josiah’s eighteenth year (see Pusey, l.s.c.). Huldah may thus have been the only possessor of the prophetic gift who was accessible. The son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; literally, keeper of the garments: In Chronicles the name of the keeper is given as “Hasrah.” Now she dwelt at Jerusalem in the collegerather, in the lower city (comp. Zep 1:10 and Neh 11:9; literally, in each place, “the second city “)and they communed with her; literally, spoke with her; , LXX.
2Ki 22:15-20
The prophecy of Huldah. The word of the Lord comes to Huldah with the arrival of the messengers, or perhaps previous to it, and she is at once ready with her reply. It divides itself into two parts. In 2Ki 22:15-17 the inquiry made is answeredanswered affirmatively, “Yes, the fiat is gone forth; it is too late to avert the sentence; the anger of the Lord is kindled, and shall not be quenched.” After this, in 2Ki 22:18-20, a special message is sent to the king, granting him an arrest of judgment, on account of his self-humiliation and abasement. “Because his heart was tender, and he had humbled himself before Jehovah, the evil should not happen in his day.”
2Ki 22:15
And she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel. Huldah is the only example of a prophetess in Israel, who seems to rank on the same footing with the prophets. Miriam (Exo 15:20), Deborah (Jdg 4:4), Isaiah s wife (Isa 8:2), and Anna (Luk 2:36) are called “prophetesses,” but in a secondary sense, as holy women, having a certain gift of song or prediction from God. Huldah has the full prophetic afflatus, and delivers God’s oracles, just as Isaiah and Jeremiah do. The case is a remarkable exception to the general rule that women should “keel) silence in the Churches.” Tell the man that sent you to me. The contrast between this unceremonious phrase and that used in verse 18 is best explained by Thenius, who says, “In the first part Huldah has only the subject-matter in mind, while in verse 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.”
2Ki 22:16
Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this placei.e. Jerusalemand upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the King of Judah hath read. In the parallel passage of Chronicles (2Ch 34:24) the expression used is stronger, viz, “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 road before the King of Judah.” The passage which most strongly affected Josiah was probably that, already mentioned, in Deu 28:1-68; which began with a series of curses.
2Ki 22:17
Because they have forsaken me. This was the gist of their offence, the thing that was unpardonable. Against this were all the chief warnings in the Law (Deu 12:19; Deu 29:25-28; Deu 31:16, Deu 31:17; Deu 32:15, etc.) and the prophets (Jdg 10:13; 1Sa 8:8; 1Sa 12:9; 1Ki 9:9; 1Ki 11:33; 1Ki 18:18; Isa 1:4; Isa 65:11; Jer 1:16; Jer 2:13, etc.). It was not merely that they broke the commandments, but they turned from God altogether, and “cast him behind their back.” And have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; i.e. “with the idols that they have made for themselves” (Keil). Therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this placei.e. against Jerusalemand shall not be quenched. Here lies the whole point of the answer. God’s threatenings against nations are for the most part conditional, and may be escaped, or at least their fulfillment may be deferred indefinitely, by repentance, as we learn from the example of Nineveh (Jon 3:1-10). But if a nation persists long in evil-doing, there comes a time when the sentence can be no longer averted. A real repentance has become impossible, and a mock one does but provoke God the more. For such a state of things there is “no remedy” (2Ch 36:16), and this was the state of things reached by the Jews. God’s anger against them could not be quenched.
2Ki 22:18
But to the King of Judah which sent you to inquire of the Lord, thus shall ye say to him (see the comment on 2Ki 22:15), Thus saith the Lord God of Israel. As touching the words which thou hast heard; i.e. the words that were read to thee by Shaphan (2Ki 22:10)the awful threats which caused thee to rend thy clothes and to make inquiry of me.
2Ki 22:19
Because thine heart was tenderor, faint, timid (comp. Deu 20:3; Isa 7:4)and thou hast humbled thyself before the Lord. Rending the garments (2Ki 22:11) was an outward act of humiliation. Josiah had accompanied it by inward repentance and self-abasement. He had even been moved to tears (see the last clause but one of this verse). When thou heartiest what I spake against this place. The book was, therefore, a record of what God had really spoken, not a fraud imposed on the king by the high priest, or on the high priest by an unknown Egyptian exile. And against the inhabitants thereof; that they should become a desolation and a curse. This is not a direct quotation from the Law, but a summary, in pregnant language, of the general effect of such passages as Le 26:31-35 and Deu 28:15-20. The language is like that of Jer 26:6; Jer 41:18; Jer 44:22. And hast rent thy clothes (see Jer 44:11), and wept before me. This had not been previously stated, but might have been gathered from Josiah’s evident sincerity, and from the ordinary habits of Orientals. I also have heard thee, saith the Lord. The general sense of Jer 44:18, Jer 44:19, is, as Bahr notes, “Because thou hast heard me and taken heed to my threats, I also have heard thee, and will delay their fulfillment.”
2Ki 22:20
Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace. There is a seeming contradiction between these words and the fact of Josiah’s violent death in battle against Pharaoh-Nechoh (2Ki 23:29). But the contradiction is not a real one. Huldah was commissioned to assure Josiah that, though the destruction of his kingdom and the desolation of Judaea and Jerusalem, threatened in the Law, were at hand, yet they would not come in his day. He would not see the evil time. Before it came he would be “gathered to his fathers” i.e; in Jerusalem, as his predecessors had been (2Ki 23:30), and not hurried off into captivity, to die in a foreign land, or given “the burial of an ass, drawn and east forth before the gates of Jerusalem” (Jer 22:19). The promise given him was fulfilled. He died in battle; but he was buried in peace (2Ch 35:24, 2Ch 35:25); and the fated enemy who was to destroy Jerusalem, and carry the Jewish nation into captivity, did not make any attack upon the land until three years later, when he was departed to his rest, and the throne was occupied by Jehoiakim (see 2Ki 24:1). And thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place; e.g. the three sieges of Nebuchadnezzar, the destruction of the temple and city by Nebuzaradan (2Ki 25:9, 2Ki 25:10), the deportation of the bulk of the inhabitants (2Ki 25:11), and the calamities which happened to the remnant left (2Ki 25:22-26). Josiah did not witness any of this. He was “taken away from the evil to come.” And they brought the king word again; i.e. Hilkiah, Shaphan, and their companions (2Ki 22:14) reported to Josiah the message which Huldah had sent by them.
HOMILETICS
2Ki 22:1-13
A righteous branch from a wicked root.
Josiah is the most astonishing instance that is contained in Scripture of goodness springing up, and attaining high perfection under the most extraordinarily unfavorable circumstances. Josiah was
I. THE SON OF AN EXTRAORDINARILY WICKED FATHER. Amon, Josiah’s father, did evil in the sight of the Lord to an extent scarcely equaled even by any of the Israelite monarchs. “He forsook the Lord God of his fathers” (2Ki 21:22), and gave himself wholly up to idolatry. And he did this notwithstanding the example of his father’s fall, punishment, and repentance. As the writer of Chronicles says (2Ch 33:23), “he trespassed more and more.” Every idolatry of every neighboring country was adopted by him and reintroduced into Judah; the temple was defiled afresh; the fires of Tophet were relighted; sodomites polluted the temple precincts (2Ki 23:7). Wickedness of every kind was encouraged, not only idolatry and debauchery, but “violence and deceit” (Zep 1:9), profane swearing (Zep 1:5), luxury in apparel (Zep 1:8), covetousness (Zep 1:18), oppression (Zep 3:1), injustice (Zep 3:2), treachery (Zep 3:3), and utter shamelessness (Zep 3:5).
II. THE GRANDSON OF A STILL MORE WICKED GRANDFATHER. Manasseh was worse than Amon in that he set at naught all the restraints of his bringing up, the example of his saintly father, and the instruction of Isaiah, whom he is said to have executed. He was worse, again, as the original introducer of many most corrupting idolatries which, but for his example, Amon might never have thought of. And he was worse as enforcing his false and impure religion on those who were reluctant to adopt it by means of persecution, and so “filling Jerusalem with innocent blood from one end to another” (2Ki 21:16)a sin which is never laid to the charge of Amon. If heredity be indeed the strong predisposing cause which modern biologists assert it to be, what depths of depravity might not a prince have been expected to sound, who had such a father as Amon, such a grandfather as Manasseh!
III. BROUGHT UP IN A CORRUPT COURT. Manasseh’s court, even after his repentance, was probably but half-purified. Amon’s must have been a sink of corruption. Childish innocence is soon lost in an atmosphere of profligacy; and Josiah, ere he was eight years of age, had probably been made to witness many of the worst forms of human depravity. “Nil dictu foedum facture haec liming tangat intra quae puer est” was a maxim not likely to obtain much observance in a palace where the rites of the Syrian goddess were approved and practiced.
IV. WITHOUT, SO FAR AS WE KNOW, ANY RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTOR. Isaiah had been martyred in the earlier portion of Manasseh’s reign. Micah had gone to his rest even earlier. Jeremiah did not receive his call until Josiah’s thirteenth year (Jer 1:2). Habakkuk and Zephaniah lived, perhaps, under Amon, but are not likely to have been allowed access to his court, much less opportunity for influencing the heir to the throne. Josiah’s official tutors and instructors under Amon must undoubtedly have been persons devoted to the court religion, which was the syncretic idolatry conceived by Manasseh and maintained by his successor. It is not quite easy to see how the young prince would come into contact with any of the professors of true religion, or obtain any knowledge of the Jehovistic worship. Such, however, was the natural purity and strength of character by God’s grace implanted in the young prince from the first, that to none of the evil influences within him or without him did he succumb. It is declared of him in the infallible Word, that “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 (verse 2). As soon as he had any power to show what his inclinations were, as soon (that is) as he was free from the trammels which confined a Jewish prince during his minority, he courageously set himself to undo the ill that his father and grandfather had done, to abolish the strange rites, to drive out the foul idolatries, and to restore the worship of Jehovah. And he earned the praise that “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 (2Ki 23:25). We may learn from this history not to assign too much weight to a man’s surroundings, but to hold firm to the belief that there is in each man a sufficient force of personality and will to enable him, if his heart be set on well-doing, to resist any amount of external circumstances, and to mould his life and character for himself, even in the exact opposite shape to that whereto all the external circumstances pointed, and which they might have seemed to have rendered necessary.
2Ki 22:8-13
A strange loss, and a strange recovery.
The loss by a nation of its sacred book is a strange and extraordinary occurrence. Books deemed sacred are naturally so highly valued and so deeply reverenced that the utmost care is taken of them. Generally, copies are multiplied and are in so many hands that the loss of all, while the nation itself survives, is practically impossible. It is practically impossible, nowadays, that the Christians should lose their Bible, or the Mohammedans their Koran, or the Hindoos their Vedas, or the Parsecs their Zendavesta, or the Chinese their Shu-King or their Taou-tih King. To understand what had taken place in Palestine shortly before Josiah came to the throne, we must consider the peculiar circumstances of the Jewish religion, and the place, which “the book of Law” occupied in it. The following points are especially worthy of note.
I. THE ORIGINAL BOOK OF THE LAW WAS DEPOSITED RESIDE THE ARK, AND KEPT THERE, “It came to pass,” we are told, “when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this Law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the Law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against them” (Deu 31:24-26).
II. THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR MAKING COPIES OF IT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ISRAEL SHOULD HAVE KINGS. Then indeed each king was to “write him a copy of the Law in a book out of that which was before the priests the Levites ‘ (Deu 17:18). But, except on such occasions, the book, it would seem, remained in the ark, and was not lent about to be copied.
III. THE DESIGN WAS TO MAKE THE LAW KNOWN TO THE PEOPLE BY READING IT TO THEM PUBLICLY. Such reading was prescribed once in each seven years, in the sabbatical year, at the Feast of Tabernacles (Deu 31:10-13). Under Nehemiah certainly (Neh 8:2-5), perhaps at other times, the precept was acted on.
IV. MULTIPLICATION OF COPIES WAS NOT NEEDED FOR SYNAGOGUES, WHICH DID NOT AS YET EXIST. The result was that probably, besides the temple copy, very few copies of the Law had at any time existed. Irreligious kings, as Rehoboam, Abijah, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amen, would, as a matter of course, disobey the precept to make a copy; and it is not even certain that all religious kings would carry out the precept. David, whose delight was in the Law (Psa 119:77), Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Hezekiah, would almost certainly have made copies; but Solomon may not have done so, nor Amaziah, nor Uzziah, nor Jotham. If the prophets seem to show such a familiarity with the Law as implies constant study, it may well be that the “schools of the prophets” were in possession of some of the royal autograph copies, or the prophets may have been allowed access as often as they required it to the temple copy. Passages of the Law as the Decalogue and other precepts regarding conduct, or, again, the promises made to the patriarchs, and to the nation at large through Moses, may have been widely known, being fixed in the memory of the people, and passed on from father to son by word of mouth. And these well-known passages may also have sometimes taken a written shape. But entire copies of the Law must, even in the time of the later kings, have been exceedingly scarce. Thus when an irreligious king like Manasseh set aside the Jehovistic worship, and thrust, it may be, into lumber-rooms, the old furniture of the temple, so that the book of the Law, i.e. the temple copy, became mislaid or lost, there was no very ready way of replacing it. Nor, perhaps, did there seem to be any absolute necessity of so doing. Except once in seven years, the reading of the Law does not appear to have formed a part of any temple service. The precepts of the Law were inculcated orally by priests and Levites, who had received them from their predecessors. Hilkiah and the priests generally were probably content to carry on the traditional teaching, and did not feel the need of seeking the water of life from the fountain-head. But suddenly a discovery was made. There had been no wanton or malignant destruction of the book of the Law. It had merely been thrust out of sight, and then forgotten. As the repair and restoration of the temple proceeded, and even lumber-rooms and closets were searched, that the whole building might be brought into proper order, those employed in the work came upon the lost volume. It was, probably, very easily recognized. As Bahr says, it may have been “distinguished by its external appearance, size, material, beauty of the writing,” etc; as the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch at Nablous is distinguished. Or it may have had for its title, “The Book of the Law of the Lord by the hand of Moses” (2Ch 34:14). There may even have been priests living who had seen the book before it was lost, and knew it as the volume with which, fifty years before, they had been familiar. At any rate, priests, king, and people unanimously, though with much grief and fear, accepted it. The prophetess, who was God’s mouthpiece at the time, confirmed their view; and it remained for nineteenth-century critics to throw a doubt upon the conclusion thus come to, and to brand the work as a forgery of Hilkiah’s, or as a chance production of a chance author, who had amused himself by composing a code of laws for a Utopia.
HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN
2Ki 22:1
2Ki 23:30
The reign of King Josiah.
The last days of Judah as an independent kingdom are fast hastening to a close. The people, in spite of all God’s merciful dealings with them, in spite of all the judgments and warnings which he had sent to their fathers, in spite of the influence and example of good kings and holy prophets whom he had raised up, were becoming worse and worse. More than a hundred years before, God had already abolished the kingdom of Israel, when the ten tribes were led away into captivity. And now for their great idolatries the destruction of the kingdom of Judah also is close at hand. In the midst of this period of decline and decay Josiah came to the throne to redeem for a time the history of his nation, and for a time to save it from its impending doom.
I. JOSIAH‘S EARLY DEVOTION. We read that in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of David his father. He was then sixteen years of age.
1. He began to seek after God in a time of almost universal godlessness and corruption. It is almost impossible for us to conceive the depth of degradation to which the nation had sunk. Two wicked kings in succession had undone all the reforms of good King Hezekiah. The first of these was Hezekiah’s own son, Manasseh, the second was Manasseh’s son, Amon. Manasseh worshipped all the host of heaven, and built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord. He set up the worship of Moloch, which is almost too terrible to describe (see above on 2Ki 16:1-20). He made his own son to pass through the fire to Moloch. He introduced not only the horrid cruelty of heathenism, but also its most filthy lusts. The reign of Amon was no better, but worse. He revived, and continued all the idolatries and all the corruption of his father’s reign. It was at such a time as this that, when Amon died, his son Josiah, then only eight years old, came to the throne. At such a time as this he began to seek after the Lord his God.
2. Moreover, he was the son of a godless and wicked father. All the influences which surrounded him seem to have been unfavorable to the growth of true religion and the fear of God. But Josiah determined that, as for him, he would not bow down to idols, that he would serve the Lord only. And God gave him strength to serve him, and crowned his subsequent efforts with blessing and success. Learn here the folly of excusing yourself from serving God by the circumstances in which you are placed. You are responsible to God for your own life, and for your own conduct, no matter how others may act. It may cost us many a hard struggle to resist the temptations that surround us on every side; but it always succeeds in the end. You may be children of ungodly parents; you may be at service in ungodly households; you may be thrown by your business among ungodly companions and surroundings;no matter! God expects you to be faithful unto him. Young men, Josiah’s early devotion is a bright example for you to follow. Never suffer yourselves to be led astray by the notion that religion is an unmanly thing. The truly religious man is the noblest and most perfect man. He is great in all that constitutes true manhood. And if you want to find the greatest heroes in the world’s history, you will find them, not among the followers of the world’s fashion and the world’s pleasure, but among the prophets, apostles, martyrs, and humble Christians in the Church of God. It is the highest aim any young man can set before him to be a humble and devoted follower of Jesus Christ. Never mind what circumstances or companions surround you, except to try and make them better. Joseph was faithful to God in Egypt. His faithfulness sent him to a prison for a time; but afterwards it raised him to be the greatest man in Egypt after the king. Daniel was faithful to God in Babylon, though he knew well it was at the risk of his life. His faithfulness brought him for a little while to the lions’ den; but it afterwards made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon. It is true heroism to be ready to sufferto suffer bodily pain, to suffer the loss of worldly goods, yes, to suffer even the loss of reputation itself, for the sake of truth and purity and right. Like Josiah, the sooner you begin to serve God the better. You will never regret it.
“Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth.”
II. JOSIAH‘S WORK OF REFORMATION. (Verse 3.2Ki 23:25.) Here also he began very early to do what he believed to be right. It was in the twelfth year of his reignwhen he was only twenty years oldthat he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places and the idols. Then in the eighteenth year of his reignwhen he was twenty-six years oldhe began to repair the house of the Lord, which had been long disused and neglected. God so prospered him in this work that the people brought large sums of money for the repairing of the temple. It was when this was being done that Hilkiah the priest found in the temple the book of the Law. There it lay, probably all covered with dust, like the unused Bible in many a home, a silent reproof to those who should have known what was right but did not do it. When the book of the Law was read to the king, he rent his clothes, in sorrow and in shame, when he thought of how the Law of God had been broken and neglected. It was determined that it should be so no longer, and, having gathered all the people together, he read in their ears all the words of the Law. Then, standing on a pillar, he made a covenant that they would serve the Lord and keep his commandments, and all the people agreed to it. After this was done, he appointed a solemn Passover to be kept by all the people. And it is said, “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; but in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, wherein this Passover was holden to the Lord in Jerusalem” (2Ki 23:22, 2Ki 23:23). It was a marvelous work for a young king to have accomplished in the twenty-sixth year of his age. He found the land full of idolatry and corruption. But he had already pulled down the altars, and burned the idols, and swept away the dens of vice. He found the temple closed, neglected, and in decay. He had already repaired it and restored the worship of the true God. He found the Law of God forgotten, forsaken, and unknownthe temple copy of it hidden away out of sight. He had already restored it to its proper place as the ruling principle of his government and of the nation’s life. Truly a marvelous work for a young king of twenty-six. We see here, as we have seen in the life of Hezekiah, the power of decision for what is right. Josiah was not content merely to know God and serve him by himself. He was determined that, so far as he had any influence, others should know and serve God too. He might have said, in the spirit of many lukewarm Christians of modern times, “What matters it? They have their religion, and I have mine.” He might have said that, as a ruler, he had nothing to do with his people’s religion, but only with their conduct as members of the state. Not so. He knew that it is religion, or the want of it, which makes or mars the happiness and prosperity of the nation. He knew that, as a servant of God, he was bound to bear his testimony and to use every influence in his power against sin and in favor of what was right. And so he acted, not with half-measures, not with half-hearted hesitation, but with firmness, fearlessness, promptness, and determination, as becomes one who is doing the work of God. And so, also, God stood by him, and gave him success in all his work. Such an example is full of instruction for our modern life. Never be a consenting party, even by your silence, to what your conscience tells you is wrong. Never consent, even by your silence, to anything dishonoring to God or not in accordance with his will. Never be a consenting party to anything that you would be ashamed of in the sight of God and mento acts of injustice to others, to dishonesty or unfairness of any kind, to profanity, to neglect of Sunday observance, or any other form of prevailing wickedness. “O my soul, come not thou into their secret; with their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united.” Like Josiah, we can never begin too soon, not only to serve God ourselves, but also to bring others to him. Like Josiah, let every servant of God show the reality of his and her religion by deeds of usefulness, by bearing testimony against sin, and by unwavering firmness in the cause of Christ and duty.
III. JOSIAH S EARLY DEATH. Josiah died at an early age. He was mourned for with great lamentation. Some think that it is of him that Jeremiah, in his Book of Lamentations, speaks when he says, “The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of Jehovah, was taken in their pits, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen.” The passage perhaps indicates how great was the influence for good, which Josiah exercised, and how much the people depended upon him as their leader and defender. His early death, before he had completed his fortieth year, must have caused many to wonder at God’s mysterious providence. But his work was done. He had really done the work of many lives in one. And so when servants of God are taken away in the prime of lifeor prematurely, as we saylet us remember that God’s ways are not our ways. In Ms sight their work is done. They have finished the work, which he gave them to do. Let us so use the precious time, which God has given us, that in our dying hour we shall not have to look back upon a wasted life. But let us live, as Josiah lived, a life of holiness, of usefulness, “redeeming the time.” And then when we are drawing’, near to the gates of death, we shall feel that for us they are the gates of heaven. We shall be able humbly and thankfully to say, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day.”C.H.I.
HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS
2Ki 22:1-20
A monarch of rare virtue, and a God of retributive justice.
“Josiah was eight years old,” etc. There are two subjects in this chapter that arrest our attention, and which are fertile with suggestions.
I. A MONARCH OF RARE VIRTUE. “Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem,” etc. In this monarch we discover four distinguished merits.
1. Religiousness of action. “He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.” This is the testimony of the historian, whoever he may be, and we are further told, “Josiah walked in all the way of David his father.” Elsewhere we have given the biblical account of David’s life. From that account it might, perhaps, be questioned whether to “walk in the way of David” was a morally creditable life. But undoubtedly in the opinion of this writer, Josiah was a man whose activity was inspired, by true religious feeling. Here we find him providing for the repairs of the temple. And 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, Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the silver which is brought into the house of the Lord, which the keepers of the door have gathered of the people: and let them deliver it into the hand of the doers of the work, that have the oversight of the house of the Lord: and let them give it to the doers of the work which is in the house of the Lord, to repair the breaches of the house.” The king who provides for the religions instruction and worship of his people proves thereby that he is under the influence of the religious sentiment. In repairing the temple, Josiah honors his people, not only by allowing, but by encouraging them to co-operate with him in the noble work. He coerces none; all were left free, and they did their work honestly and honorably. “Howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand, because they dealt faithfully.”
2. Docility of mind. “And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the Law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again. And Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the Law, that he rent his clothes.” What book was this? Old time buries the choicest books; volumes that once moved the intellects and fired the hearts of men are sunk in the black waves of oblivion. In all probability the book here was the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. A copy of this, it seems, having been laid beside the ark in the most holy place (Deu 31:25, Deu 31:26), had been lost, and now, during the repairing of the temple, it was discovered. Was this a Divine book? If so, why should its Author have suffered it to have been lost, perhaps for generations? A human author, had he the power to prevent it, would not suffer his productions to meet with such a fate. But the thoughts of God are independent of books; they are not only written on the pages of nature, but in imperishable characters on the souls of men. But how did Josiah act towards this discovered book? Did he reject it, or was he indifferent to it? No. “It came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the Law, that he rent his clothes.” Herein how unlike is this man, not only to ordinary mortals, but also to ordinary kings! How many kings have been ready to receive new light? Are they not for the most part so mailed in traditions and prejudices as to render the admission of a new truth well-nigh impossible? If the modem occupants of thrones would but universally open their eyes to those old truths of eternal right which come flashing from their graves, all oppressions would cease, and kingdoms would march on to freedom and. light. “Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.”
3. Tenderness of heart. See how the discovery of the book affected him. “He rent his clothes.” It is also said, in 2Ki 22:19, “Thine heart was tender.” Sensibility of heart gives life, worth, and power to intellect. Where sensibility and intellect are not in their due proportion, the character is defective. Where the sensibility is stronger than the intellect, the man is likely to become a morbid pietist or a reckless fanatic. Where the intellect is stronger in proportion to the sensibility, the man is likely to become a cold theorist, living in the frigid abstractions of his own brain. But where both are properly combined, you have a man fit for great things. A man who, if he be a friend, will give counsels that will tell alike on your understanding and heart. Sensibility feathers the arrows of argument, gives poetry and power to thought.
4. Actualization of conviction. When this discovered document came under Josiah’s attention, and its import was realized, he was seized with a conviction that he, his fathers, and his people, had disregarded, and even outraged, the written precepts of Heaven. He exclaims, “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.” With this new conviction burning within him, wharf does he do? Does he strive to quench it? or does he allow it to burn itself out without any effort on his part? No; he at once commands his servants to make an effort on behalf of himself and his people. “Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found.” The new emotions that rushed into his tender heart prompted him to seek immediate counsel how to avert the curses under which his kingdom lay. They obeyed his behests. “So 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); 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, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the King of Judah hath read: because they have forsaken me, etc. (2Ki 22:14-18). Here the prophetess spoke the universal sentiment of mankind, viz. that where wrong is, suffering must follow. All experience, all history, attests the truth of the sentiment. But the noteworthy point here is that this tender-hearted man translated his emotions into actions. He did not allow his new feelings to pass away as the morning cloud, nor did he expend them in sentimental sighs and groans. Well would it be for all men if they acted thus; for this, in truth, is the only method of spiritual progress. It is only as men embody true thoughts and feelings in actions that they rise to true manhood.
II. A GOD OF RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE. Such a God the prophetess here reveals. “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the King of Judah hath read.” The government over us, and to which we are bound with chains stronger than adamant, is retributive; it never allows evil to go unpunished. It links in indissoluble bonds sufferings to sin. Sorrows follow sin by a law as immutable and resistless as the waves follow the moon. “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” In this retribution
(1) the wicked are treated with severity, and
(2) the good are treated with favor.
In the name of God this prophetess declares concerning Josiah, “As touching the words which thou hast heard; because thine heart was tender, and thou hast humbled thyself before the Lord, when thou heartiest what I spake 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, saith the Lord. Behold 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.” Though righteous judgments were soon to descend upon his country on account of its manifold and heinous sins, he, Josiah, who had proved faithful amongst the faithless, would be spared the terrible storm. He should neither feel it nor see it; his body would be sleeping in the quiet grave, and his spirit be gathered to his “fathers,” with all the true men of past times. We are prone to think of death as an evil; it is an event that often appalls us with the ghastly aspects that it assumes before our imagination. There are circumstances that make it appear especially sad. For example: when a man like Josiah, of immense influence for good, dies in the zenith of life, and in the midst of usefulness, we deem it an occasion of special sadness. But it is not so, either to the man himself or to his generation. He is taken away from the evil that is coming, and the circumstance of his death, and the loss caused by his departure, tend to rouse his contemporaries to serious and salutary thought. Death is no respecter of persons. The Divine government of the world is like a stream that rolls under us; men are only as bubbles that rise to its surface; some are brighter and larger, and sparkle longer in the sun than others: but all must break, whilst the mighty current rolls on in its wonted majesty. We are shadows, and following shadows. There is nothing real but God.D.T.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
2Ki 22:1-7
Josiah: the temple again repaired.
The reign of Josiah affords another example of the law of action and reaction in national life. Dr. R. Payne Smith says, “The nation itself had gradually swung round, as nations now do, and had begun to be as dissatisfied with Baal and Moloch as their fathers had been with Jehovah” (‘Introduction to Jeremiah’); and Dean Stanley remarks, “The popular election which placed Josiah on the throne, of itself marks some strong change of public feeling”. It is safer, however, to infer this change in public feeling from the support afterwards given to Josiah in his measures of reform, than from the mere fact of his accession; for as yet his disposition was quite uncertain. The craving for a change of some kind, with a secret weariness of the policy and extreme doings of the pagan party, had perhaps more to do with the young king’s popularity than any real desire to serve Jehovah.
I. THREE BEGINNINGS.
1. The beginning of a reign. Josiah was but a boy of eight years old when he was placed upon the throne. At this age he was in danger, like his grandfather Manasseh, of being a mere puppet in the hands of the godless aristocracy. But God’s providence seems to have watched over Josiah, and to have caused some care to be taken to guide the young king right. The queen-mother, Jedidah (“the beloved of God”), daughter of Adiah (“the honored of God”), may perhaps have deserved her lofty name, and given her boy the priceless benefit of a godly mother’s example and counsels” (Geikie). She may even have acted as regent during his minority, and in that capacity have gathered around her the worthy persons who afterwards figure in the narrative, Shaphan the scribe, etc.
2. The beginning of grace. Josiah from the first must have shown good dispositions, and a willingness to be guided and taught by godly counselors. But it is to the eighth year of his reign, that is, his sixteenth year, that the Book of Chronicles attributes the first decided evidence of his determination to seek Jehovah. “For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was still young, he began to seek after the God of David his father’ (2Ch 34:3). From this period his career seems to have been a singularly straightforward and consistent one: “He walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.” What led to this decision in his eighth year we cannot tell. The age at which he had now arrived marks the time about which independent thought commonly begins; possibly some increase of responsibility led him to deeper reflection; it may well be that his mind had long been secretly brooding on religion, and he now took some public step which showed decidedly which side he was on. Nothing seems so beautiful as early piety. A character like Josiah’s appearing after reigns like those of Manasseh and Amon is as a snowdrop at the close of winter. It is the piety which begins early that lasts longest, and shows the most blameless record. Beautiful in all, early grace is specially beautiful in those who occupy high positions, and are destined to exercise a wide influence. With many young men the sixteenth year of life is a turning-point in a different direction. Josiah then “began” to seek the Lord. Too often it is the period when the restraints of home religion are thrown off, and young men “begin” to think and act for themselves in forbidden ways.
3. The beginning of reforms. The chronicler gives us another date, viz. the twelfth year of Josiah’s reign, as that in which he began to effect a religious reformation in the land. “In the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the Asherim, and the graven images, and the molten images,” etc. He was then twenty years of age, and the reforms mentioned, though begun in that year, extended on till after his eighteenth year. He had probably to begin cautiously, dealing with the more obvious abuses, and gradually feeling his way to bolder changes. A strong party, no doubt, were opposed to his reforms, and it is difficult to say how far they had advanced before the repair of the temple and the finding of the Law-book. The narratives of neither Chronicles nor Kings adhere strictly to chronological order, but we may suppose that before the projected repairs on the temple building were undertaken, both “the land and the house” had been purged of their worst abominations (2Ch 34:8). The Baal-altars, idols, and Asherim would be removed; idolatrous worship on the high places stepped, though the people may still have sacrificed on them, as in the latter days of Manasseh, “yet unto the Lord their God only” (2Ch 33:17); the sacrifices to Moloch in the valley of Hinnom put an end to. If this was so, it is certain that the temple, in which the worship of Jehovah, with a priest like Hilkiah at its head, had been restored, would not be left uncleared of its Baal-images, its horses of the sun, its prostitutes, etc. (2Ki 23:6, 2Ki 23:7, 2Ki 23:11). Things, in short, would be brought back to the state in which they had been left at Manasseh’s death (2Ch 33:15-18). This Josiah might safely attempt, though passages in the prophets show that much idolatry still remained. Earnest religion invariably brings forth its appropriate fruits in zeal for the honor of God, the purification of his worship, and the purging away of evils and abuses.
II. THE EIGHTEENTH YEAR. Hitherto, whatever Josiah had done had been more or less the result of his individual action. The conscience of the nation had not been touched, nor had any enthusiasm been awakened in favor of the new reforms. On the contrary, these had probably aroused not a little bitterness and sullen hostility. At the head of this narrative in Kings, therefore, is placed the date of “the eighteenth year of King Josiah,” when the movement enters on an altogether new phase, and swells to national dimensions. The immediate occasion of this change was the finding of the Law-book in the temple, and this again was owing to the repairs which the king had ordered to be executed on the sacred edifice. Glancing at present only at the narrative of these repairs on the temple, we find that they were:
1. Much healed. There is no record of repairs on the temple since the days of King Hezekiah (2Ch 29:3). In the interval the building had frequently suffered from total neglect, and idolatrous kings had made changes in its structure to suit their own purposes. There were “breaches’ to repair (verse 5), roofs to fit with “beams’ (2Ch 34:11), and much carpentry and mason work to do with timber and hewn stone throughout the house. It is strange how indifferent those who dwell in their own “ceiled houses” can often be to the state of the house wherein God is worshipped (Hag 1:4). It is the sign of a true zeal for God when there is a proper desire shown to maintain even the outer fabric of ecclesiastical buildings in a decent condition of repair.
2 Already collected for. The means for executing the repairs on the Lord’s house had been obtained by voluntary collections at the door of the temple. It is by the king’s order, sent through Shaphan the scribe to Hilkiah the high priest, to sum up the money which had been thus gathered, that the matter first comes before us in the narrative. These collections from the peoples which must have been going on for some time, show that the worship of Jehovah was now regularly conducted. They also afford us a lesson as to the mode of meeting the expense connected with church building and repairs.
(1) The money was raised before the repairs were commenced. This was a sound principle, and, if more frequently acted upon, would save a good deal of trouble with Church debt. The temple was sorely in need of repair, and it might have been pleaded that the case was too urgent to admit of delay till the money was collected. It was resolved, however, to collect the money before a single workman was put upon the building.
(2) It was raised by voluntary, subscription. The people were not taxed, or forced in any way, to give this money. It was their own free-will offering. Yet apparently the sums required were raised without difficulty. The modern Church expedients of bazaars, etc; are surely inferior to this Old Testament plan. If the appeal to voluntary liberality sometimes does not yield all that we could wish, it is, on the whole, the surest source of income to rely on, and reacts, as no other does, on the heart of the giver.
3. After a good precedent. Alike in the collecting of the money, the distribution to the workmen, and the reliance placed in the fidelity of the overseers, those in charge of this business seem to have followed closely the precedents of the reign of Joash. It is good to learn from those who have gone before us.J.O.
2Ki 22:8-20
The finding of the Law-book.
The finding of the book of the Law by Hilkiah in the temple marks a distinct turning-point in Josiah’s reformation It is admitted generally that this Law-book included, if it did not exclusively consist of, the Book of Deuteronomy. As it is further allowed that some of the main narrative documents of our present Pentateuch, and the book of the covenant (Exo 21:1-36.-23.), if not also collections of priestly laws, were then in existence, and had long been, we see no reason to doubt that the “book of the Law” discovered by Hilkiah included the bulk of the writings which make up “the five books of Moses.” Several legitimate inferences may be drawn from the narrative.
1. A “book of the Law” was known to have been once in existence. Hilkiah speaks of it as “the book of the Law”a book long lost, now found, and at once recognized.
2. The copy found was the complete, standard, authoritative copy. It was this which gave it its peculiar value.
3. It would seem as if no other copies of the book were then known to exist, at any rate none were in possession of the parties named in this chapter. If they had been, we can hardly doubt that the contents would have been in some way communicated to the king. This last inference, however, must not be pushed too far. Complete copies of the Law would at all times be rare, and amidst the troubles and persecutions of Manasseh’s long reign may well have been lost, especially as there do not seem to have been in Judah organized prophetic guilds such as existed in Israel, or at least the prophets we now, Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Huldah, etc; did not belong to them (cf. the state of matters before the Reformation m Europe, and the finding of the Latin Bible by Luther in the convent at Erfurt). But it does not follow that in prophetic circles no parts or fragments of the Law were in existence. The narrative parts of the Law would be more frequently copied than the legislative, and abstracts or summaries of the book of the covenant, or of the laws in Deuteronomy, perhaps selected passages from these books, may have been in circulation. There was even an order of “scribes” whom Jeremiah accuses of using their false pens to falsify the Law. “How do ye say, We are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely’ (Jer 8:8). The scribes may have falsified the Law itself, altering its text, expunging its denunciations against idolatry, or making unauthorized additions to it; or they may have falsified it by their comments and interpretations of its meaning. The only thing certain is that the portions of the Law which so affected the conscience of the king were not in any current summaries or copies.
I. FINDING GOD‘S WORD. “And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the Law in the house of the Lord.” This Law-book”the book of the Law of Moses” (2Ki 14:6)had undergone strange vicissitudes. We see it:
1. Sinfully lost. What treasure, one would think, so precious as the words which God had spoken to this nation through their great law-giver Mosesthe statutes and judgments and commandments he had ordered them to keep, and which constituted their great glory as a people (Deu 4:5-8)? “What advantage then hath the Jew? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom 3:1, Rom 3:2). Yet this Law of God had been so sinfully neglected that the very knowledge of it had well-nigh perished out of the land, and the book which contained it, from which this knowledge might be revived, had disappeared. The king had neglected it, he who should have been its chief defender; the official classes of the court had neglected it; the priests who had charge of God’s house had neglected it, and allowed it to remain unused till it had got into some corner or room where it was covered up with rubbish and lost sight of; the scribes used what knowledge they retained of it only to falsify it. What sin! It was as if there were a deliberate conspiracy to hunt this first Bible out of existence. If to-day there is not the same danger of the knowledge of the Bible being lost as at some past periods of history, it is not because among many classes there is not as strong a hatred of it or as great neglect. With how many is the Bible an unopened book from one week’s end to the other! Multitudes are as ignorant of its contents as the far-off heathen; multitudes more have lost whatever knowledge they once had of it through neglect and misuse; in the case of yet greater multitudes its truths are as inoperative as if the book were indeed lost.
2. Providentially found. God’s providence is seen in nothing more remarkably than in the care he has exercised over the written Word. He has wonderfully protected it through all ages alike from the neglect and the fury of men. If for a time the knowledge of it seemed lost, it was again revived at the most favor-able juncture for the execution of his purposes. Thus at the Reformation we see a preparation for the new movement in the revival of learning, the invention of printing, the emergence into light of important manuscripts of the New Testament, etc. That was practically a finding of the Law-book of the Church, as marvelous and as providential as this discovery in the reign of Josiah. It was Josiah’s zeal in the repairing of the temple which prepared the way for the discovery here; and the book was found just in time to give a new impetus to the reforming movement. In Divine providence, all things fit together in time and place.
3. Reverently examined. Hilkiah knew the book when he saw it, and he gave it to Shaphan the scribe, and he read it. It would be with trembling, eager hand that Shaphan turned over the pages, and, with his scribe’s professional instinct, satisfied himself that this was the veritable lost copy of the Law. Taking it with him, he read it more leisurely, not completely, of course, but parts of it, those parts especially which were new to him. This was the right way to treat God’s Word. Our chief anxiety, if we possess the sacred volume, should be to know what God the Lord will speak to us (Psa 85:8). Cf. Edward Irving’s lectures on “The Word of God”
(1) the preparation for consulting the Word of God;
(2) the manner of consulting the Word of God;
(3 and 4) the obeying of the Word of God (‘Lectures,’ vol. 1.).
II. TREMBLING AT GOD‘S WORD.
1. Shaphan‘s announcement. Having ascertained the contents of the book for himself, Shaphan lost no time in bringing it under the notice of the king. He seems to have felt the need of care in his manner of doing this. The book contained strong denunciations and terrible threatenings (cf. Deu 28:1-68.), and he was not sure how the king would receive the ancient message. He resolved, therefore, not to prejudice its reception by any statements of his own, but simply to make the announcement of the discovery, and leave the book to speak for itself. He begins, accordingly, by stating the fulfillment of his commission in regard to the monies of the temple. Then he showed the book to the king, saying merely, “Hilklah the priest hath delivered me a book.” Critics have detected subtle meanings in the studiously simple way in which this announcement is made; but the above, probably, is the true explanation of it.
2. The book read. The king, whose interest was at once awakened, naturally asked to have part of the book read to him. Shaphan began to read, selecting apparently parts towards the close of the rollDeut, 28; 29; and the like. How much he read we are not informed, but the effect produced was instantaneous and profound. Our aim in reading the Scriptures should be to ascertain from it the whole counsel of God. We must not dwell on the promise to the exclusion of the threatening, or think that any part is without its use “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,” etc. (2Ti 3:16).
3. Conviction by the Word. “The Spirit of God,” say the Westminster Divines, “maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners.” Remarkable revivals of religion have often been produced by the reading of the Word alone. It was so in the case of Josiah. The book of the Law was the only preacher, but, as Shaphan read it aloud, its words went like sharp swords to the heart of the king. He knew previously that the nation had committed great sins, with which God was displeased, and he had done what he could to institute reforms. Now for the first time he learned what direful woes were predicted on those who should commit such sins, and he saw the enormity of the nation’s evil as he had never before realized it. In deepest emotion he rent his clothes, and sent at once an honorable deputation “to inquire of the Lord concerning the words of the book” of the Prophetess Huldah. We see.
(1) The power of the Word to convince men of sin. This power belongs to the words of Scripture as to those of no other book. “The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul,” etc. (Psa 19:7). “The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword,” etc. (Heb 4:12). The fact that it is so is an evidence of the divineness of Scripture. The power of the Bible is derived from the nature of the truths it declares, from the inspired grandeur of its utterances, from the “thus saith the Lord” which stands behind them and drives them home with authority, and from the inward attestation which its words find in the conscience (2Co 4:2). Great reformations have always been accompanied with an extended circulation of the Bible (Wickliffe, Tyndale, Luther, etc.).
(2) An example of the right reception of the Word. Josiah did not act like the profane Jehoiakim, who, when God’s threatenings were read to him, took his penknife and cut the prophet’s roll to pieces, casting it into the fire (Jer 36:20-24). He trembled at God’s Word (Isa 66:2). He was, like Noah, “moved with fear,” when he heard of the dreadful evils God would bring upon the nation. He did not dispute the justice of God’s threatenings, but acknowledged that he was righteous, and the people wicked. He included himself in the general condemnation: “Great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened,” etc. This is how God’s Word ought always to be receivedwith humility, with faith, with trembling of heart at his threatenings, if also with joy and hope at his promises.
III. LIGHT SOUGHT ON GOD‘S WORD.
1. A holy woman. The king, as above stated, sent “to inquire of the Lord” at the hands of an accredited prophet, with the view of ascertaining what means should be adopted to reverse, if possible, the curse which the sins of long generations had brought upon the nation. The persons sent were fiveHilkiah the priest, Shaphan the scribe, and his son Ahikam, Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Asahiah a servant of the king’s,an honorable deputation. The person to whom they went was a prophetess named Huldah, who dwelt in Jerusalem. This holy woman was no recluse, but the wife of Shallum, the keeper of the royal (or priestly) wardrobe. In the distribution of God’s gifts, woman is not less honored than man. We learn from Huldah that religion and the duties of common life do not stand apart.
2. The Word confirmed. On the general question the prophetess had little to give them in the way of comfort. Probably she had already learned the tenor of the threatenings in the sacred book, or its words were now read to her; but she could only speak to give the threatenings emphatic confirmation. “Tell the man that sent you, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place,” etc. The words of the Law would be fulfilled, because the people had committed the sins which the Law denounced: “They have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods,” etc. This is not contrary to Jeremiah’s word, “If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them” (Jer 18:8; cf. 2 Kings 26:3). It was the knowledge and foresight that Judah would not truly repent which gave the absoluteness to the prophecy. Jeremiah, while exhorting to repentance, also gives expression to the other side of the truth, that the nation’s condition is hopeless (Jer 7:16; Jer 15:1, etc.).
3. Mercy to the king. To the “man” Huldah had no message of comfort; but to “the King of Judah” she had a word of mercy to send. Because Josiah’s heart was tender, and he had humbled himself when he had heard of the desolation and the curse that would come upon the land, therefore God had heard him, and would spare him the experience of the evil that was to come. He would be taken away “from the evil to come” (Isa 57:1). Had the nation as a whole repented in like manner, we cannot doubt that it would have been similarly spared. God never rejects the humble and contrite heart (Isa 66:2). It is noteworthy that this prediction was fulfilled in a way which externally was a great calamity to the nation, viz. Josiah’s defeat and death at Megiddo, in battle with Pharaoh-Nechoh (2Ki 23:29, 2Ki 23:30). God’s mercy veils itself under strange disguises.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
We are brought acquainted in this chapter with Josiah, the good king. Many of his pious deeds are recounted. The book of the law is found by Hilkiah. Shaphan reads in it before the king. Josiah’s pious weeping in the rehearsal. He sendeth with humbleness to inquire of the Lord. The Lord’s answer.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The most interesting circumstances for a gospel Reader to mark in those verses are the wonderful properties of grace. Josiah could derive nothing from his wicked father, either in precept or example, but what was evil. And yet we find in his early days tokens of grace. Oh! Reader! how sure and certain is it, that grace springs wholly from the sovereign pleasure and appointment of Jehovah. It ariseth from thee fountain head of everlasting love. Even so, Father (as our dearest Jesus explained it) for so it seemed good in thy sight. This is the sole cause. And therefore here must be ascribed the sole glory. Mat 11:26 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
A Talk to Boys and Girls
2Ki 22:1-2
Two verses, and yet that is a miniature of the good King Josiah, in which six things are told us about him.
I. He Made an Early Start. He was eight years old when he began to reign. These duties were laid upon him when he was quite a young boy and the first thing we learn from him is to make an early start.
II. He Had a Very Long Race. He reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem. It is not enough to make an early start; we want to run a long race, keeping it up from the beginning to the very end.
III. He Kept a Straight Course; he turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.
IV. ‘His Mother’s Name was Jedidah.’ Why is it her name is given? It is evident her name is given as an explanation of his early good life.
V. Josiah Followed a Good Leader. He ‘walked in all the way of David, his father’. David had run that race before him, and had run that race well, and in him Josiah followed a good example. How you live will depend very much on what examples you choose to follow.
VI. Josiah Knew There was a Great Spectator present at the race Who had His eye upon him, even God. He did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord. He knew that God was near, and was watching, and that, no doubt, helped him in many an hour of trial, and strengthened him for many a burden of duty.
A. E. Garvie, The Christian World Pulpit, vol. LXIII. p. 349.
References. XXII. 8. R. Scott, Oxford University Sermons, p. 325. XXII. 8-20. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Kings from chap. viii. p. 60. XXII. 19, 20. ‘Plain Sermons’ by contributors to the Tracts for the Times, vol. v. p. 227. XXV. 1-12. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Kings from chap. viii. p. 66. XXV. 27-29. J. M. Neale, Sermons for the Church Year, vol. ii. p. 1. XXV. 30 (R. V.). J. E. Wakerley, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxvi. 1904, p. 147.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
2Ki 22
1. Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jedidah [beloved], the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath [a city of Judah not far from Lachish].
2. And 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 [undeviating obedience: the phrase is rare in the later Scriptures].
3. And it came to pass in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, that the king sent Shaphan [frequently mentioned by Jeremiah as his friend and protector] the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the house of the Lord, saying,
4. Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the silver which is brought into the house of the Lord, which the keepers of the door have gathered of the people [during a period of six years]:
5. And let them deliver it into the hand of the doers of the work, that have the oversight of the house of the Lord: and let them give it to the doers [contractors or overseers] of the work which is in the house of the Lord, to repair the breaches of the house,
6. Unto carpenters, and builders, and masons, and to buy timber and hewn stone to repair the house.
7. Howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand, because they dealt faithfully. [For the names of the honest overseers, see 2Ch 34:12 .]
8. And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law [no doubt the copy deposited according to Deu 31:26 ] in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.
9. And 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 in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the Lord.
10. And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.
11. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes [partly in grief and horror, and partly in reverence].
12. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam [a protector of Jeremiah] the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king’s, saying,
13. Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me [seek out a prophet, for enquiry by Urim and Thummim had ceased], and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning 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.
14. So 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 [the robes]; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college [the new or outer city];) and they communed with her.
15. And she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me,
16. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words [the threatenings] of the book which the king of Judah hath read:
17. Because they have forsaken [see Deu 29:25-27 ] 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 kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched.
18. But to the king of Judah which sent you to enquire of the Lord, thus shall ye say to him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, As touching the words which thou hast heard;
19. Because thine heart was tender, and thou hast humbled thyself before the Lord, when thou heardest what I spake 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 [in unspoken prayer, or through symbolic action], saith the Lord.
20. Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers [Josiah was the last king of Judah honourably buried in Jerusalem], 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.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
X
GATHERING UP THE FRAGMENTS THAT NOTHING BE LOST
The title of this chapter is a New Testament text for an Old Testament discussion. For the sake of unity the last two chapters were devoted exclusively to Elijah and Elisha. It is the purpose of this discussion to call attention to some matters worthy of note that could not very well be incorporated in those personal matters, and yet should not be omitted altogether.
It is true, however, that the heart of the history is in the lives of these two great prophets of the Northern Kingdom. In bringing up the record we will follow the chronological order of the scriptures calling for exposition.
Jehoshaphat’s Shipping Alliance with Ahaziah. We have two accounts of this: first, in 1Ki 22:47-49 , and second, in 2Ch 20:35-37 . I wish to explain, first of all, the locality of certain places named in these accounts. Tarshish, as a place, is in Spain. About that there can be no question. About Ophir, no man can be so confident. There was an Ophir in the southern part of Arabia; a man named Ophir settled there, but I do not think that to be the Ophir of this section. The Ophir referred to here is distinguished for the abundance and fine quality of its gold. Several books in the Bible refer to the excellency of “the gold of Ophir,” and to the abundance of it. Quite a number of distinguished scholars would locate it in the eastern part of Africa. Some others would locate it in India, and still others as the Arabian Ophir. My own opinion is, and I give it as more than probable, that the southeastern coast of Africa is the right place for Ophir. Many traditions put it there, the romance of Rider Haggard, “King Solomon’s Mines,” follows the traditions. The now well-known conditions of the Transvaal would meet the case in some respects.
Ezion-geber is a seaport at the head of the Gulf of Akaba, which is a projection of the Red Sea. What is here attempted by these men is to re-establish the famous commerce of Solomon. I cite the passages in the history of Solomon that tell about this commerce. In 1Ki 9:26 we have this record: “And King Solomon made a navy of ships in Eziongeber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram (king of Tyre) sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon.” Now, 1Ki 10:11 reads: “And the navy also of Hiram, that brought gold from Ophir, brought in from Ophir great plenty of Almug trees and precious stones.” This “almug-trees” is supposed to be the famous sweet-scented sandalwood. The precious stones would agree particularly with the diamond mines at Kimberly in the Transvaal.
Then1Ki_10:22 reads: “For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram: Once every three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.” The ivory and apes would fit very well with the African coast, but we would have to go to India to get the spices, which are mentioned elsewhere, and the peacocks. A three years’ voyage for this traffic seems to forbid the near-by Arabian Ophir, and does make it reasonable that the merchant fleet touched many points Arabia, Africa, and the East Indies. It is, therefore, not necessary to find one place notable for all these products gold, jewels, sandalwood, ivory, apes, spices, and peacocks. Solomon, then, established as his only seaport on the south Eziongeber, a navy, manned partly by experienced seamen of Tyre, and these ships would make a voyage every three years. That is a long voyage and they might well go to Africa and to India to get these varied products, some at one point and some at another.
Now Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah (king of Israel) made an alliance to re-establish that commerce. The first difficulty, however, is that the Chronicles account says that these ships were to go to Tarshish, and the Kings account says that they were ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir. My explanation of that difficulty is this: It is quite evident that no navy established at Eziongeber would try to reach Spain by circumnavigating Africa, when it would be so much easier to go from Joppa, Tyre, or Sidon over the Mediterranean Sea to Spain. “Tarshish ships” refers, not to the destination of the ships, but to the kind of ships, that is, the trade of the Mediterranean had given that name to a kind of merchant vessel, called “Ships of Tarshish.” And the ships built for the Tarshish trade, as the name “lndianman” was rather loosely applied to certain great English and Dutch merchant vessels. It is an error in the text of Chronicles that these ships were to go to Tarshish. They were Tarshish ships, that is, built after the model of Tarshish ships, but these ships were built at Eziongeber for trade with Ophir, Africa, and India.
1Ki 22:47 of the Kings account needs explanation: “And there was no king in Edom; a deputy was king.” The relevancy of that verse is very pointed. If Edom had been free and had its own king, inasmuch as Eziongeber was in Edom, Judah never could have gone there to build a navy. But Edom at this time was subject to Judah, and a Judean deputy ruled over it. That explains why they could come to Eziongeber.
One other matter needs explanation. The account in Kings says, “Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with thy servants in the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not.” Ahaziah attributed the shipwreck of that fleet to the incompetency of the Judean seamen. He did not believe that there would have been a shipwreck if he had been allowed to furnish experienced mariners, as Hiram did. So Kings gives us what seems to be the human account of that shipwreck, viz: the incompetency of the mariners; but Chronicles gives us the divine account, thus: “Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the Lord hath destroyed thy works. And the ships were broken.” How often do we see these two things: the human explanation of the thing, and the divine explanation of the same thing. Ahaziah had no true conception of God, and he would at once attribute that shipwreck to human incompetency, but Jehoshaphat knew better; he knew that shipwreck came because he had done wickedly in keeping up this alliance with the idolatrous kings of the ten tribes.
THE TRANSLATION OF ELIJAH Let us consider several important matters in connection with the translation of Elijah, 2Ki 2:1-18 . First, why the course followed by Elijah? Why does he go from Carmel to Gilgal and try to leave Elisha there, and from Gilgal to Bethel and try to leave Elisha there, and from Bethel to Jericho and try to leave Elisha there? The explanation is that the old prophet, having been warned of God that his ministry was ended and that the time of his exodus was at hand, wished to revisit in succession all of these seminaries. These were his stopping places, and he goes from one seminary to another. It must have been a very solemn thing for each of these schools of the prophets, when Elisha and Elijah came up to them, for by the inspiration of God as we see from the record, each school of the prophets knew what was going to happen. At two different places they say to Elisha, “Do you know that your master will be taken away to-day?” Now, the same Spirit of God that notified Elijah that his time of departure was at hand, also notified Elisha, also notified each school of the prophets; they knew.
But why keep saying to Elisha, “You stay here at Gilgal; the Lord hath sent me to Bethel,” and, “You stay here at Bethel; the Lord hath sent me to Jericho,” and “You stay here at Jericho; the Lord hath sent me to the Jordan”? It was a test of the faith of Elisha. Ruth said to Naomi, “Entreat me not to leave thee, nor to forsake thee; for where thou goest, I will go; and God do so to me, if thy God be my God, and thy people my people, and where thou diest there will I die also.” With such spirit as that, Elisha, as the minister to Elijah, and as the disciple of Elijah, and wishing to qualify himself to be the successor of Elijah, steadfastly replied: “As the Lord liveth and thy soul liveth, I will not forsake thee.” “I am going with you just as far as I can go; we may come to a point of separation, but I will go with you to that point.” All of us, when we leave this world, find a place where the departing soul must be without human companionship. Friends may attend us to that border line but they cannot pass over with us.
We have already discussed the miracle of the crossing of the Jordan. Elijah smote the Jordan with his mantle and it divided; that was doubtless his lesson to Elisha, and we will see that he learned the lesson. I heard a Methodist preacher once, taking that as a text, say, “We oftentimes complain that our cross is too heavy for us, and groan under it, and wish to be relieved from it.” “But,” says he, “brethren, when we come to the Jordan of death, with that cross that we groaned under we will smite that river, and we will pass over dry-shod, and leave the cross behind forever, and go home to a crown to wear.”
The next notable thing in this account is Elijah’s question to Elisha: “Have you anything to ask from me?” “Now, this is the last time; what do you want me to do for you?” And he says, “I pray thee leave a double portion of thy spirit on me.” We see that he is seeking qualification to be the successor. “Double” here does not mean twice as much as Elijah had, but the reference is probably to the first-born share of an inheritance. The first-born always gets a double share, and Elisha means by asking a double portion of his spirit that it may accredit him as successor. Or possibly “double” may be rendered “duplicate,” for the same purpose of attenuation. The other prophets would get one share, but Elisha asks for the first-born portion. Elijah suggests a difficulty, not in himself, but in Elisha ; he said, “You ask a hard thing of me, yet if you see me when I go away, you will get the double portion of my spirit,” that is, it was a matter depending on the faith of the petitioner, his power of personal perception. “When I go up, if your eyes are open enough to see my transit from this world to a higher, that will show that you are qualified to have this double portion of my spirit.” We have something similar in the life of our Lord. The father of the demoniac boy says to our Lord, “If thou canst do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” Jesus replied, “If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth.” It was not a question of Christ’s ability, but of the supplicant’s faith.
The next thing is the translation itself. What is meant by it? In the Old Testament history two men never died; they passed into the other world, soul and body without death: Enoch and Elijah. And at the second coming of Christ every Christian living at that time will do the same thing. “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, they shall be changed.” Now, what is that change of the body by virtue of which without death, it may ascend into heaven? It is a spiritualization of the body eliminating its mortality, equivalent to what takes place in the resurrection and glorification of the dead bodies. I preached a sermon once on “How Death [personified] Was Twice Startled.” In the account of Adam it is said, “And he died” and so of every other man, “and he died.” Methuselah lived 969 years, but he died. And death pursuing all the members of the race, strikes them down, whether king or pauper, whether prophet or priest. But when he comes to Enoch his dart missed the mark and he did not get him. And when he came to Elijah he missed again. Now the translations of Enoch and Elijah are an absolute demonstration of two things: First, the immortality of the soul, the continuance of life; that death makes no break in the continuity of being. Second, that God intended from the beginning to save the body. The tree of life was put in the garden of Eden, that by eating of it the mortality of the body might be eliminated. Sin separated man from that tree of life, but it is the purpose of God that the normal man, soul and body, shall be saved. The tradition of the Jews is very rich on the spiritual significance of the translation of Enoch and Elijah. In Enoch’s case it is said, “He was not found because God took him,” and in this case fifty of the sons of the prophets went out to see if when Elijah went to heaven his body was not left behind, and they looked all over the country to find his body. Elisha knew; he saw the body go up.
Now, in Revelation we have the Cherubim as the chariot of God. This chariot that met Elijah at the death station was the chariot of God, the Cherubim. Just as the angels met Lazarus and took his soul up to heaven, and it is to this wonderful passage that the Negro hymn belongs: “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.”
Elisha cried as the great prophet ascended, “My Father! My rather I The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof,” the meaning of which is that thus had gone up to heaven he who in his life had been the defense of Israel, worth more than all of its chariots and all of its cavalry. Now these very words “were used when Elisha died. “My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof,” signifying that he had been the bulwark of the nation as Elijah had been before him.
ELISHA’S MINISTRY, 2Ki 2:19-25 As Elijah went up something dropped not his body, but just his mantle his mantle fell, and it fell on Elisha, symbolic of the transfer of prophetic leadership from one to the other. Now, he wants to test it, a test that will accredit him; so he goes back to the same Jordan, folds that same mantle up just as Elijah had done, and smites the Jordan. But, mark you, he did not say, “Where is Elijah” the man, Elijah, was gone, but, “Where is the Lord God of Elijah?” and the waters divided and he came over. There he stood accredited with a repetition of the miracle just a little before performed by Elijah, which demonstrated that he was to be to the people what Elijah had been. And this was so evident that the sons of the prophets recognized it and remarked on it: “The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha.” It is a touching thing to me, this account of more than fifty of these prophets, as the president of their seminary is about to disappear, came down the last hill that overlooks the Jordan, watching to see what became of him. And they witness the passage of the Jordan they may have seen the illumination of the descent of the chariot of fire. They wanted to go and get the body the idea of his body going up they had not taken in, and they could not be content until Elisha, grieved at their persistence) finally let them go and find out for themselves that the body had gone to heaven.
I have just two things to say on the healing of the noxious waters at Jericho. The first is that neither the new cruse nor the salt put in it healed the water. It was a symbolic act to indicate that the healing would be by the power of God. Just as when Moses cast a branch into the bitter waters of Marah, as a symbolic act. The healing power comes from God. The other re-mark is on that expression, “unto this day,” which we so frequently meet in these books. Its frequent recurrence is positive proof that the compiler of Kings and the compiler of Chronicles are quoting from the original documents. “Unto this day” means the day of the original writer. It does not mean unto the day of Ezra wherever it appears in Chronicles, but it means unto the day of the writer of the part of history that he is quoting from. More than one great conservative scholar has called attention to this as proof that whoever compiled these histories is quoting the inspired documents of the prophets.
THE CHILDREN OF BETHEL AND THE SHE-BEARS Perhaps a thousand infidels have referred Elisha’s curse to vindictiveness and inhumanity. The word rendered “little children” is precisely the word Solomon uses in his prayer at Gibeon when he says, “I am a little child” he was then a grown man. Childhood with the Hebrews extended over a much greater period of time than it does with us. The word may signify “young men” in our modern use of the term. And notice the place was Bethel, the place of calf worship, where the spirit of the city was against the schools of the prophets, and these young fellows call them “street Arabs,” “toughs,” whom it suited to follow this man and mock him: “Go up, thou bald bead; go up, thou bald head.” Elisha did not resent an indignity against himself, but here is the point: these hostile idolaters at Bethel, through their children are challenging the act of God in making Elisha the head of the prophetic line. He turned and looked at them and he saw the spirit that animated them saw that it was an issue between Bethel calf worship and Bethel, the school of the prophets, and that the parents of these children doubtless sympathized in the mockery, and saw it to be necessary that they should learn that sacrilege and blasphemy against God should not go unpunished. So, in the name of the Lord he pronounces a curse on them had it been his curse, no result would have followed. One man asks, “What were these she-bears doing so close to Bethel?” The answer is that in several places in the history is noted the prevalence of wild animals in Israel. We have seen how the old prophet who went to this very Bethel to rebuke Jeroboam and turned back to visit the other prophet, was killed by a lion close to the city.
Another infidel question is, “How could God make a she bear obey him?” Well, let the infidel answer how God’s Spirit could influence a single pair of all the animals to go into the ark. Over and over again in the Bible the dominance of the Spirit of God over inanimate things and over the brute creation is repeatedly affirmed. The bears could not understand, but they would follow an impulse of their own anger without attempting to account for it.
THE INCREASE IN THE WIDOW’S OIL, 2Ki 4:1-7
We have already considered this miracle somewhat in the chapter on Elisha, and now note particularly:
1. It often happens that the widow of a man of God, whether prophet or preacher, is left in destitution. Sometimes the fault lies in the imprudence of the preacher or in the extravagance of his family, but more frequently, perhaps, in the inadequate provision for ministerial support. This destitution is greatly aggravated if there be debt. The influence of a preacher is handicapped to a painful degree, when, from any cause, he fails to meet his financial obligations promptly. In a commercial age this handicap becomes much more serious.
2. The Mosaic Law (Lev 25:39-41 ; see allusion, Mat 18:25 ) permitted a creditor to make bond-servant of a debtor and his children. For a long time the English law permitted imprisonment for debt. This widow of a prophet appeals to Elisha, the head of the prophetic school, for relief, affirming that her husband did fear God. In other words, he was faultless in the matter of debt. The enforcement of the law by the creditor under such circumstances indicates a merciless heart.
3. The one great lesson of the miracle is that the flow of the increased oil never stayed as long as there was a vessel to receive it. God wastes not his grace if we have no place to put it: according to our faith in preparation is his blessing. He will fill all the vessels we set before him.
DEATH IN THE POT, 2Ki 4:38-41 We recall this miracle to deepen a lesson barely alluded to in the chapter on Elisha. The seminaries at that time lived a much more simple life than the seminaries of the present time; it did not take such a large fund to keep them up. Elisha said, “Set on the great pot,” and one of the sons of the prophets went out to gather vegetables. He got some wild vegetables he knew nothing about here called wild gourd and shred them into the pot, not knowing they were poisonous. Hence the text: “O man of God, there is death in the pot.” I once took that as the text for a sermon on “Theological Seminaries and Wild Gourds,” showing that the power of seminaries depends much on the kind of food the teachers give them. If they teach them that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory, then they might just as well make the second Adam an allegory, for his mission is dependent on the failure of the first. If they teach them the radical criticism; if they teach anything that takes away from inspiration and infallibility of the divine Word of God or from any of its great doctrines then, “O man of God, there is death in the pot” that will be a sick seminary.
In a conversation once with a radical critic I submitted for his criticism, without naming the author, the exact words of Tom Paine in his “Age of Reason,” denying that the story of Adam and Eve was history. He accepted it as eminently correct. Then I gave the author, and inquired if it would be well for preachers and commentators to revert to such authorities on biblical interpretation. He made no reply. We find Paine’s words not only in the first part of the “Age of Reason,” written in a French prison without a Bible before him, but repeated in the second part after he was free and had access to Bibles. I gave this man a practical illustration, saying, “You may take the three thousand published sermons of Spurgeon, two sets of them, and arrange them, one set according to the books from which the texts are taken Gen 1:2 , Gen 1:3 , etc., and make a commentary on the Bible. By arranging the other set of them in topical order, you have a body of systematic theology.” Now this man Spurgeon believed in the historical integrity and infallibility of the Bible, in its inspiration of God, and he preached that, just that. As the old saying goes, “The proof of the pudding is in the chewing of the bag.” He preached just that, and what was the result? Thousands and thousands of converts wherever he preached, no matter what part of the Bible he was preaching from; preachers felt called to enter the ministry, orphan homes rose up, almshouses for aged widows, colportage systems established, missionaries sent out, and all over the wide world his missionaries die in the cause. One man was found in the Alps, frozen to death, with a sermon of Spurgeon in his hand. One man was found shot through the heart by bush rangers of Australia, and the bullet passed through Spurgeon’s sermon on “The Blood of Jesus.” Now, I said to this man, “Get all your radical critics together, and let them preach three thousand sermons on your line of teaching. How many will be converted? How many backsliders will be reclaimed? How many almshouses and orphanages will be opened? How many colportage systems established? Ah! the proof of the pudding is in the chewing of the bag. If what you say is the best thing to teach about the Bible is true, then when you preach, it will have the best results. But does it?”
We have considered Elisha’s miracle for providing water for the allied armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom, when invading Moab (2Ki 3:10-19 ). We revert to it to note partakelarly this passage: “And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew sword, to break through unto the king of Edom: but they could not. Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great wrath against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land” (2Ki 3:26-27 ). On this passage I submit two observations:
1. Not long after this time the prophet Micah indignantly inquires, “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” The context is a strong denunciation of the offering of human sacrifices to appease an angry deity. The Mosaic law strongly condemned the heathen custom of causing their children to pass through the fire of Molech. Both this book of Kings and Jeremiah denounce judgment on those guilty of this horrible practice. The Greek and Roman classics, and the histories of Egypt and Phoenicia, show how widespread was this awful custom.
2. But our chief difficulty is to expound the words, “There was great wrath against Israel.” But what was its connection with the impious sacrifice of the king of Moab? Whose the wrath? The questions are not easy to answer. It is probable that the armies of Edom and Judah were angry at Israel for pressing the king of Moab to such dire extremity, and so horrified at the sacrifice that they refused longer to co-operate in the campaign. This explanation, while not altogether satisfactory, is preferred to others more improbable. It cannot mean the wrath of God, nor the wrath of the Moabites against Israel. It must mean, therefore, the wrath of the men of Judah and Edom against Israel for pressing Mesha to such an extent that he would offer his own son as a sacrifice.
QUESTIONS
I. On the two accounts of Jehoshaphat’s shipping alliance with Ahaziah, 2Ki 22 ; 2Ch 20 , answer:
1. Where is Tarshish?
2. Where is Ophir?
3. Where is Ezion-geber?
4. What is the relevance of 1Ki 22:47 ?
5. Explain “ships of Tarshish” in Kings, and “to go to Tarshish” in Chronicles.
6. What commerce were they seeking to revive, and what passage from 1 Kings bearing thereon?
7. How does the book of Kings seem to account for the wreck of the fleet, and how does Chronicles give a better reason?
II. On the account of Elijah’s translation (2Ki 2:1-18 ) answer:
1. Why the course taken by Elijah by way of Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho?
2. How did both Elisha and the schools of the prophets know about the impending event?
3. What was the object of Elijah in telling Elisha to tarry at each stopping place while he went on?
4. What was the meaning of Elisha’s request for “a double portion” of Elijah’s spirit and why was this a hard thing to ask, i.e., wherein the difficulty? Illustrate by a New Testament lesson.
5. What was the meaning of Elijah’s translation, and what other cases, past or prospective?
6. What was the meaning of Elisha’s expression, “My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof,” and who and when applied the same language to Elisha?
7. How does Elisha seek a test of his succession to Elijah and how do others recognize the credentials?
III. How do you explain the seeming inhumanity of Elisha’s cursing the children of Bethel?
IV. On the widow’s oil (2Ki 4:1-7 ), answer:
1. What often happens to the widow of a prophet or preacher, and what circumstance greatly aggravates the trouble?
2. What is the Mosaic law relative to debtors and creditors?
3. What one great lesson of the miracle?
V. On “Death in the Pot” answer:
1. What the incident of the wild gourds?
2. What application does the author make of this?
3. What comparison does the author make between Spurgeon and the Radical Critics?
VI. On Elisha’s miracle, the water supply, answer:
1. What is the allusion in Micah’s words, “Shall I give my first-born,” etc.?
2. What the meaning of “There was great wrath against Israel”?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
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 22:1 Josiah [was] eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name [was] Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath.
Ver. 1. Josiah was eight years old. ] Josiah he was called by God two or three hundred years before he was born. 1Ki 13:2 His name signifieth, The salvation of God: and he answered his name better than did Probus the emperor; of whom, notwithstanding, the historian saith, a that if Honest had not been his name, yet it might well have been his surname. Some say, but not so well, that he was called Josiah, q., Jah-scai, that is, the gift of God, or, q., Jah-esch, that is, the fire of God, sc., for his zeal, which is called the flame of God. Son 8:6
And his mother’s name was Jedidah,] i.e., The Lord’s darling, as his grandmother’s name was Hephzibah; 2Ki 21:1 a couple of good women likely, doing the same for Josiah as afterward Eunice and Lois did for young Timothy.
a Fla. Vopis.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
eight years. Manasseh began at twelve, bred under godly Hezekiah. Josiah began at eight, bred by ungodly Amon. Contrast the two characters.
Boscath. In Judah. Compare Jos 15:39.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 22
And Josiah was only eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned for thirty-one years in Jerusalem. And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD ( 2Ki 22:1-2 ).
Now at this point you need to read the prophecy of Jeremiah, because here is where Jeremiah began his prophecies. And Josiah was a good king as far as spiritual reforms went. However, at this point, the people have been so corrupted as the result of Manasseh that with the people, the born again movement became a popular movement because the king said he was born again. And so it became a popularized movement among the media, but it wasn’t a genuine movement within their hearts. It wasn’t a true experience.
And so the temple was all of a sudden full of people again. Everybody, it was the popular vogue thing to do, to go to the temple. And so God said to Jeremiah, “Go down to the temple, the gate of the temple and as the people are passing through it in the temple, cry out, ‘Trust not in lying vanities saying, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these. The lies, emptiness.’ They’re not really serving God.” And of course, Jeremiah got into all kinds of trouble, because of the things God told him to tell these kings. Thrown in dungeons. Thrown in the prison. Ran into a lot of difficulty, but this is when Jeremiah began his prophecy, and now to the end of the kingdom unto the four kings. Jeremiah prophesies under Josiah here, and then unto Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, actually. But Jeremiah doesn’t mention Jehoiachin because his reign was so short.
So this is the period in which Jeremiah is prophesying, and so when you read Jeremiah, you got to bring your mind back to this point in history so that you’ll understand better the…you know, as you go through the Bible more and more, as you start to put it together, it helps in understanding. You’ll understand Jeremiah better if you can put it with this portion of history and you’ll understand this portion of history better if you’ll read the commentary on it by Jeremiah. So that’s where the Bible starts to come in together and the cumulative knowledge of the Bible begins to really develop. And you really begin to understand the thing a lot better as you take these pieces of the puzzle and you start fitting them together. You begin to get the whole picture. You know, as long as you’re just looking at one little piece of the puzzle, you’re saying, “I don’t know where that goes. How does that fit? It’s a weird shape and those are weird colors.” And you study it and you can study for a long time and still not understand it very well.
But when you start putting and linking the pieces together and the faces and everything begins to take shape, it’s, “Oh yeah; see that, alright,” you know. And it begins, but you’ve got to start putting up the pieces together. So when you get to Jeremiah, put it back to here or jump ahead. It won’t hurt you to read Isaiah and Jeremiah this week. If you take the time that you’re going to spend this week reading the daily newspaper, you can probably read both books.
Now what you’re going to gain from reading the daily newspaper is deep depression and discouragement and despair as you see what a mess the world is in. But if you read Jeremiah and Isaiah, you’ll get all kinds of hope. You’ll see that even in the darkness God is there; God is working and God is promising a light at the end of the dark tunnel.
So Josiah began to reign. He began in reforms, the rebuilding of the temple. The temple, of course, under Manasseh have been you put all these altars in the courts and in the temple itself, and they tore all these things out. They started cleaning up the temple. They took the money that was brought into the temple and they used it to begin to repair the breaches that were in the house of the Lord. And as they were repairing the temple, they came across the copy of the law of the Lord. Now the law have been lost for a long time. They didn’t even know the law of the Lord. And some guy came across a copy of the law of the Lord. And so the priest began to read the law of the Lord, and as they began to read, they realized, “Oh, how we have disobeyed the law of God!”
Came to pass, when the king heard the words of the book of the law, that he tore his clothes. He said, Go, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, for all of Judah, concerning the words of this book that you found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened to the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us ( 2Ki 22:11 , 2Ki 22:13 ).
So they came to Huldah the prophetess who was there with the college of prophets.
And she said unto them, Thus saith the LORD the God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me, Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, upon the inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read: Because they have forsaken me, and they’ve burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger and all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place, and not be quenched. But to the king of Judah which 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 you have heard; Because your heart was tender, and you have humbled yourself before the LORD, when you heard what I spake against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation, a curse, and you have torn your clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard thee, saith the LORD. Behold 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 that I’m going to bring upon this place. And so they brought the king the word of the Lord ( 2Ki 22:15-20 ).
So Josiah, he heard the law and he tore his clothes; he wept before God. Real repentance. “Oh God, you know, what have we done. What have our fathers done?” And so inquiring of the Lord through Huldah the prophetess, he received this message that the nation was going to fall. However, not in the time of his reign. So he ordered that the people be gathered together and that they read the law of the Lord to all of the people. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 22:1
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
With Josiah’s accession came the last attempt at reformation before Judah was finally swept into captivity. Josiah’s first act of reformation was to restore the Temple. All that followed grew out of that.
In connection with it came the discovery of the book of the Law. The condition of affairs in Judah may be gathered from this discovery. The nation had become utterly corrupt during the fifty-seven years covering the reigns of Manasseh and Amon. The Temple was neglected and deserted, and it would seem as though neither king nor priest knew of the whereabouts of this book. No doubt they were aware of its existence, but so far had the people grown from recognition of, and response to, the divine government, that the sacred writings had been neglected and the actual Temple copy lost.
The effect of the book on the king revealed his ignorance of its content. Therein he found how far the nation had wandered from the divine ideal, and how terrible were the curses pronounced on them for their wandering. Having a conscience quick and sensitive, he at once realized both the danger threatening them and its cause, and turned for counsel to the prophetess Huldah. Speaking on divine authority, she recognized the sincerity of the king and the corruption of the people; and declared, in effect that the reformation to follow would be unreal so far as the people were concerned, but that because of Josiah’s loyalty to Jehovah he would be gathered in peace to his fathers before the final blow should fall.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Finding the Lost Law
2Ki 22:1-13
In the midst of a dissolute court, Josiahs young life grew as a palm on the desert-waste. At the age of sixteen he sought the Lord, and at eighteen he became even more earnest and devoted, as though some special quickening had passed over his soul and led him to set about the repair of the Temple. In this he was greatly aided by Hilkiah. It was a fair sunrise, though the day was prematurely overcast.
During the process of renovation a copy of the Book of the Law was discovered, and Shaphan read it before the king. It is supposed that the passage which he recited and which so greatly moved his soul, was Deu 28:1-68; Deu 29:1-29; Deu 30:1-20, where are enumerated the awful consequences that would follow the failure to observe Gods law. What ruthless havoc had Manasseh wrought, that all the copies of the Law had become destroyed! It reminds us of the wholesale burning of the Bible in Tyndale s day! The housebreaker is always careful to extinguish the light that might reveal his presence and lead to his identification. Let us not hesitate to preach the whole counsel of God, and not hide the inevitable doom of the ungodly. It is by the Word that the Holy Spirit convicts of sin.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Josiah
(Supported by Jehovah)
(2 Kings 22-23; 2 Chron. 34-35)
Contemporary Prophet, Jeremiah.
A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them.-Pro 20:26
Josiah was eight years old when he began to I reign, and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And his mothers name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath. And 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.
At last, after more than three hundred years, the prophecy of the man of God out of Judah is fulfilled: Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee [the idol altar at Bethel] shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and mens bones shall be burnt upon thee (1Ki 13:2). For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young [sixteen], he began to seek after the God of David his father: and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images, And they brake down the altars of Baalim in his presence; and the images [lit., sun-pillars] , that were on high above them, he cut down; and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images, he brake in pieces, and made dust of them, and strowed it upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto them. And he burnt the bones of the priests upon their altars, and cleansed Judah and Jerusalem.
Gods purposes will ripen fast,
is true, in a certain sense; yet in another sense
The mills of God grind slow.
Scoffers long may have asked, Where is the promise of this coming prince, this child of the house of David, named Josiah? And as generation after generation passed, and no prince of that name appeared, even the righteous may have questioned in their minds and wondered if God had forgotten, or doubted if the prophecy were really true. Did Jedidah (beloved) know of this prophecy when she named her first-born? or the childs grandmother, Adaiah (Jah has adorned)? They were of the town of Boscath, a swell (of ground), and at last the time had come when he should rise of whom the prophet had spoken; and the prophecy was now fulfilled-as all Gods word must be.
And so did he in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even unto Naphtali, with their mattocks round about. And when he had broken down the altars and the groves, and had beaten the graven images into powder, and cut down all the idols throughout all the land of Israel, he returned to Jerusalem. It took six years of labor to accomplish this; and in the eighteenth year of his reign, when he had purged the land, and the house, he commissioned his officers of state to repair the house of the Lord his God. Levites were sent throughout the land to collect the money necessary for this work. And they put it in the hand of the workmen that had the oversight of the house of the Lord, and they gave it to the workmen that wrought in the house of the Lord, to repair and amend the house: even to the artificers and builders gave they it, to buy hewn stone, and timber for couplings [or joists], and to floor the houses which the kings of Judah had destroyed. And the men did the work faithfully. Manasseh, though restored personally, had not the energy-or influence, perhaps-to do this work. Everything must have been in a ruined state when the young Josiah began his work of restoration.10
And now a great discovery was made. A hid treasure (long lost, no doubt) was found, better than of gold or rubies rare. And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses. And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. And Shaphan carried the book to the king, and brought the king word back again, saying, All that was committed to thy servants, they do it. And they have gathered together the money that was found in the house of the Lord, and have delivered it into the hand of the overseers, and to the hand of the workmen. He says nothing of the new-found treasure as yet. It may not have been a treasure in his eyes, perhaps. Like many at the present time, he was more occupied with workmen and money than with Gods book, which He has magnified, not merely above all Christian work or missionary enterprise (though these have their place), but above all His name. Shaphan did not despise the book, but he had not yet, like many a modern scribe, realized the importance of that blessed volume. Then-after money, and overseers, and workmen, have all been mentioned-then, Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book-only a book! And Shaphan read it before the king.
And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. He then commanded the temple curators, and his servant Asaiah, saying, Go, inquire of the Lord for me, and for them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book. It was, no doubt, the Pentateuch-either the original, as written by Moses, or the temple copy (Deu 31:26), used in days gone by at the coronation of their kings (See Deu 17:18; 2Ch 23:11.) How long it had been lost is not known; probably since the beginning of Manassehs reign at least.
And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tokehath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe: now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the second quarter [of the town]; and they spoke with her to that effect (2Ch 34:22, N. Tr.). Why they did not inquire of Jeremiah, or Zephaniah (who were contemporary with Josiah (Jer 1:3; Zep 1:1), is uncertain. Anathoth, Jeremiahs birthplace, was only three miles from Jerusalem, and so within easy reach. Both these prophets, however, may have been too young at the time to be consulted as prophets by the nation. (See Jer 1:2).
Huldahs answer was a most impressive one: Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell ye the man that sent you to me, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses which are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah: because they have forsaken Metherefore My wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not be quenched. And as for the king, of Judah, who sent you to enquire of the Lord, so shall ye say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, concerning the words which thou hast heard, because thy heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before God, when thou heardest His words against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, and humbledst thyself before Me;I have even heard thee also, 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, and upon the inhabitants of the same. So they brought the king word again.
In wrath God remembers mercy; and like his great-grandfather Hezekiah, Josiah is comforted with the assurance that there should be a postponement of these impending judgments during his day, because he, like Hezekiah, humbled himself. He at once gathered all the elders of the land together, and with them and the priests and Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he [or, one] read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord.
And the king stood on the dais and made a covenant before Jehovah, to walk after Jehovah, and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statutes with all his heart and with all his soul, to establish the words of this covenant that are written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant (2Ki 23:3, N. Tr.) On the young kings part this was all real, no doubt, but one has only to read the earlier part of Jeremiahs prophecy to see how hypocritical it was with the mass of the people. (See Jer 3:10, marg.) They had enthusiastically entered into covenants with the Lord before, and the outcome was always the same-breakdown, and wider departure from God than ever before.
The work of reformation is then extended: And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God. And all his days they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their fathers (2Ch 34:33).
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 downAnd 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 [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. 1Ki 13:2.] Then he said, What title 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 Bethel. 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.
It is not certain if this remarkable incident occurred before, or after, the finding of the copy of the law in the temple; (see Authors Introduction). It proves however that after the lapse of at least three centuries the prophecy of the Judean prophet was still fresh in the minds of men. God not only lets none of His words fall to the ground, but takes care also that in some way or other they are preserved in the memories of those concerned in them. The title on the man of Gods tomb would help, no doubt, to keep the occurrence from being forgotten. How awed and encouraged Josiah the king must have felt, to know that he had been named and appointed by God for the work he was doing, so many generations before. How it would tend to impress upon him the force and meaning of such scriptures as the 139th psalm. And witnessing how literally the prophecy of the man of God was fulfilled, he and all his people, would be convinced that the prophecies of Huldah and Jeremiah against themselves would in like manner be exactly fulfilled.
Moved, no doubt, by what was written in the recovered book of the law regarding it, Josiah kept a passover unto the Lord in Jerusalem. Careful preparations were made that everything might be done according to the written word of God. It was in the eighteenth year of his reign, so was probably celebrated immediately after the completion of the temple repairs and the finding of the book. (Comp. 2Ch 34:8, and 35:19). And he set the priests in their charges, and encouraged them to the service of the house of the Lord. And said unto the Levites, that taught all Israel, which were holy unto the Lord, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build, it shall not be a burden upon your shoulders: serve now the Lord your God and His people Israel. And prepare yourselves by the houses of your fathers, after your courses, according to the writing of David king of Israel, and according to the writing of Solomon his son. It was all to be done according to what was written. Josiah evidently took great care as to this, and so became a beautiful example for all who long to please the Lord and desire to decline neither to the right hand nor to the left, like this godly king, from following Him. Some in the kingdom might think him too much bound to the letter of these writings, but he would have Gods approval, which was quite enough. No one can say where the wilful departure of a hairs breadth may not eventually lead. The safety of all is to keep as far away from the edge of the precipice as possible. Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all Thy commandments (Psa 119:6).
Josiah tells the Levites to put the ark in its proper place in the temple, and not bear it any longer on their shoulders. It is the last historical reference to the ark in Scripture. It would almost appear, from Jer 3:16, that it had been made an object of ostentatious display, and was possibly borne by the Levites in procession through the streets of Jerusalem. It is never after heard of, and probably perished when the temple was burned by the Chaldees (2Ch 36:19).
The king further commands the Levites: Kill the passover, he says, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare your brethren, that ye may do according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Moses. And such a pass-over it was!-there was no passover like to that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; neither did all the kings of Israel keep such a passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. It even exceeded the great pass- over under Hezekiah, which had not been equaled since the time of Solomon son of David king of Israel (2Ch 30:20). Josiahs surpassed that of all the kings, and found its compeer only in that of the prophet.
And now comes the closing act in this stirring drama of Josiahs life. After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Charchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him. But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that He destroy thee not. It was a fair warning, and Josiah should certainly have heeded it. Necho came against Assyria, and had no quarrel with Josiah. He was a man of enterprise and energy. It was he who attempted to connect the Red Sea with the Nile by a canal. Phenician navigators, under his patronage, circumnavigated the continent of Africa. He came by sea on this expedition, and landed at Accho. So he was not even on Josiahs territory when that king culpably marched his forces against him.
Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and harkened not unto the words of Necho from the mouth of God,11 and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo. And the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Have me away; for I am sore wounded. His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his fathers.
Why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt, that thou shouldest fall? said the king of Israel to Amaziah, Josiahs ancestor, years before (2Ki 14:10). Josiah should also have been familiar with the proverb, copied by the men of Hezekiah, He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears (Pro 26:17). And another: It is an honor for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling (Pro 20:3). It was not of faith, else why disguise himself? There is no record of any prayer before the battle, as in the case of so many of his godly ancestors; and this rash act of Josiah seems unaccountable. He may have suspected that Necho had some ulterior design upon his kingdom; but as the king of Egypt strongly disclaimed any such intention, Josiahs unprovoked attack upon him was wholly unjustified. And God, who is the God of peace and righteousness, would not preserve him, as he had Jehoshaphat. There is another light, too, in which Josiahs early end may be looked at. The people were utterly unworthy of such a godly ruler, and their wickedness, spite of external reformation, called loudly for judgment; so the righteous was taken away from the evil to come. Viewed from this standpoint, it was a mercy to the man himself; but to the nation, speaking after the manner of men, it was a dire calamity.
They evidently realized this, for we read, All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah: and all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the lamentations. These lamentations must not be confounded with Jeremiahs Lamentations, written over (and therefore after) Jerusalems fall. (Comp. Jer 22:10-13; Zec 12:11)
Josiah was the last good king to sit upon the throne of David, till He come whose right it is. And he was the last whose body found a resting-place among the kings, the sepulchres of his fathers.
The memory of this just and energetic king is blessed. When only twenty years of age he began the herculean task of cleansing his kingdom of its abominations. There were vessels that were made for Baal, and for all the host of heaven, to be brought forth out of the temple; there were idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained, to be put down-them that burned incense to Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets. And he brake down the houses of the sodomites [men consecrated to vile purposes], that were by the house of the Lord, where the women [also consecrated to heathen deities] wove hangings [tents] for the groves. Joshua the governor of the city had high places at the entrance of his gate which Josiah fearlessly broke down. He took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entering in of the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathanmelech the chamberlain,and burned the chariots of the sun with fire. And the altars that were on the top [or roof] of the upper chamber of Abaz, 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 (or shattered). He seems to have had few sympathizers, or supporters, in his reforms, and superintended some of the work personally. (See 2Ki 23:16.) He could not be blamed if the mass of the people were hypocritical and unreal. (See Zep 1:5). Genuine repentance is not wrought by a kings command, but he did all that lay in his power, and did not permit a single visible vestige of idolatry to remain in his realm. It is significant that when this last righteous king of Judah died, the whole land was outwardly cleansed of its abominations. And when his work was done, God called him home, though an Egyptian arrow was His messenger. 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 (2Ki 23:25).
Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and his goodness, according to that which was written in the law of the Lord, and his deeds, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah.
10 The shameful idolatry that filled the land had to be cleared away before any claim to, or restoration of, Jehovahs worship could be made. Hence this must be accomplished ere Jehovahs temple is restored-which in Hezekiahs day was done first (2Ch 29:3).-[Ed.
11 The word from the mouth of God may sometimes come through such as are not true servants of God. See John 11:49-5; 1Num. 23:5; Jos 13:22. [Ed.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
2Ki 22:8
(with 2Ch 34:15)
There is an apparent discrepancy between the recorded facts of the reign of Josiah and the indications of his inward temperament and disposition which are given to us. The facts of his reign, if we could come to their study independently, would lead us to characterize him as an ardent, sanguine, energetic man. All seems consistent with this view: his zeal for religion, his labour in the restoration of the Temple and the reformation of the kingdom, and the warlike spirit which forced a collision with the power of Egypt and cost him his life at Megiddo. Activity, forwardness, and enterprise seem to mark the man, quite as distinctly as the deep religious principle which hallowed his doings.
Such would be the conclusion from the data of a human historian. But here the superhuman element comes in to represent his real character in a very different light. Huldah the prophetess is appropriately introduced to speak of him as tender, sensitive, and feminine in character, and to promise as his best reward that he should be taken away early from the evil to come.
I. During the restoration of the Temple a sensation was produced by the discovery of the original roll of the Law, which had been put into the ark eight centuries before. The reading of the book produced panic and dismay because of its contents, its threatenings, the evil denounced in it against the sins of the house of Judah. King and people alike seem to have been ignorant of the very existence of their Bible, as a book containing the revelation of God’s wrath against sinners.
II. This story touches not only the nation or the Church; it touches every one of us. Are there not many of us who have lost the book of life-lost it how much more wilfully, how much more guiltily, because in so many senses we have it? If we acquire the habit of studying the Bible merely or chiefly with scientific or literary views, of prying into it, dissecting it, criticising the word because it is man’s, as if it were not also God’s, can we help fearing that we may be losing the word of life?
III. Notice the result of the discovery of the book of the Law. The king rent his clothes, and sent to inquire of the Lord for himself and his people concerning the words of the book that was found. Let us also seek for deep and living repentance for the sin which our ignorance has been.
R. Scott, University Sermons, p. 325.
References: 2Ki 22:11.-S. Wilberforce, Sermons before the University of Oxford, p. 175. 2Ki 22:12, 2Ki 22:13.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xii., No. 704.
2Ki 22:19-20
I. The discovery of Moses’ law in the Temple is a very important occurrence in the history, because it shows us that Holy Scripture had been for a long while neglected and to all practical purposes lost. Josiah had been brought up among wicked men, in a corrupt court, after an apostasy of more than half a century, far from God’s prophets and in the midst of idols.
II. Still Josiah had knowledge enough to be religious. He had that which all men have, heathen as well as Christians, till they pervert or blunt it: a natural sense of right and wrong; and he did not blunt it. He acknowledged a constraining force in the Divine voice within him; he heard and obeyed. At sixteen he began to seek after the God of his fathers. At twenty he commenced his reformation with a resolute faith and true-hearted devotion. He found the book of the Law in the course of his reformation. He was seeking God in the way of His commandments, and God met him there.
III. Observe his conduct when the Law was read to him. “He rent his clothes.” He thought far more of what he had not done than of what he had done. He bade the priests inquire of God for him what he ought to do to avert His anger. When he received the message of Huldah, he assembled all Judah to Jerusalem, and publicly read the words of the Law. Then he made them renew the covenant with the God of their fathers, and after that he held his celebrated passover. His greater knowledge was followed by greater obedience.
IV. Observe in what Josiah’s chief excellence lay. His great virtue was his faith or conscientiousness. These virtues are in substance one and the same; they belong to one habit of mind: dutifulness; they show themselves in obedience, in the careful, anxious observance of God’s will, however we learn it. Let us, like Josiah, improve our gifts, and trade and make merchandise with them, so that when He cometh to reckon with us we may be accepted in His sight.
J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermon’s, vol. viii., p. 91.
References: 2Ki 22-J. Vaughan, Children’s Sermons, 5th series, p. 48; Parker, vol. viii., p. 300.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
V. THE REIGN OF JOSIAH
1. The Revival
CHAPTER 22
1. Josiah begins to reign (2Ki 22:1-2; 2Ch 34:1-2)
2. The temple repaired (2Ki 22:3-7; 2Ch 34:8-13)
3. The law discovered (2Ki 22:8-9; 2Ch 34:14-21)
4. The reading of the law and its results (2Ki 22:10-14)
5. The words of Huldah, the prophetess (2Ki 22:15-20)
After the violent death of Amon his eight-year-old son Josiah (sustained by Jehovah) began to reign. Under him the greatest reformation and revival took place. While he was yet young he began to seek after the God of David, his father. Afterward he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem. The carved images and molten images as well as the altars of Baal were destroyed by him. And he burnt the bones of the priests upon the altars, and cleansed Judah and Jerusalem (2Ch 34:5). Thus was fulfilled the prophecy uttered more than three hundred years before by the man of God from Judah (1Ki 13:2). Perhaps the prophecy had been forgotten, the unbelievers may have ridiculed its fulfillment. But when Gods time came He saw to the literal fulfillment of His own Word. It is so today. Rationalists scoff at the Word of God. Others spiritualize the predictions of the Bible and do not believe that they will ever be fulfilled. This is one of the characteristics of the last days of the age (2Pe 3:3-7).
We must leave it to the reader to study the details of the great reformation-revival which took place under Josiah. In the annotations on Second Chronicles we point out some of its lessons. After the breaking down of the idols and idol-altars the temple was repaired. The law was also found by Hilkiah the high-priest. The Word of the Lord written by Moses in the Pentateuch had most likely been hidden away by Manasseh. It was the accusing voice of God against the wickedness of the king. Strange it is that it is not mentioned in connection with the repentance and conversion of Manasseh. And when the law was read to the king by Shaphan, the king rent his clothes.
Here we have a tender conscience bowing under the action of the Word of God. This was one special charm in the character of Josiah. He was, in truth, a man of an humble and contrite Spirit, who trembled at the Word of God. Would that we all knew more of this! It is a most valuable feature of the Christian character. We certainly do need to feel, much more deeply, the weight, authority, and seriousness of Scripture. Josiah had no question whatever in his mind as to the genuineness and authenticity of the words which Shaphan had read in his hearing. We do not read of his asking, How am I to know that this is the Word of God? No; he trembled at it. He bowed before it. He was smitten down under it. He rent his garments. He did not presume to sit in judgment upon the Word of God, but, as was meet and right, he allowed that word to judge him. Thus it should ever be. If man is to judge Scripture, then Scripture is not the Word of God at all. But if Scripture is, in very truth, the Word of God, then it must judge man. And so it is, and so it does. Scripture is the Word Of God and it judges man thoroughly. It lays bare the very roots of his nature–it opens up the foundations of his moral being. It holds up before him the only faithful mirror in which he can see himself perfectly reflected. This is the reason why man does not like Scripture–cannot bear it–seeks to set it aside–delights to pick holes in it–dares to sit in judgment upon it. It is not so in reference to other books. Men do not trouble themselves so much to discover and point out flaws and discrepancies in Homer or Herodotus, Aristotle or Shakespeare. No; but Scripture judges them–judges their ways–their lusts. Hence the enmity of the natural mind to that most precious and marvellous book which carries its own credentials to every divinely prepared heart (Things New and Old).
The direct result of reading the Word of God was more than outward grief and repentance. The king gave the command, Go ye, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people and for all Judah. Jeremiah and Zephaniah were then upon the scene, but we do not read anything of them in the record. It is Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum (retribution), the son of Tikvah (meaning hope) the son of Harhas (meaning extremely poor). That he had to inquire of a woman, the weaker vessel, must have been humiliating to the king. And Huldahs message is one of judgment. To Josiah personally good is promised. He was not to see the evil. In spite of the great reformation-revival, judgment would fall upon Judah and upon Jerusalem (verses 15-17).
And here is an important lesson for our own times. Reformations and revivals cannot keep back the decreed judgments of God. Often it is thought that great waves of reformation and revival movements are evidences that the world is getting better and that only good is in store for this age. It is forgotten that this age is an age marked by departure from God, by the rejection of His own blessed Son and by the perversion of the truth of God. It will culminate in the great apostasy and the manifestation of the man of sin–the son of perdition. Christendom has been even more unfaithful than Israel in Old Testament times. Judgment is in store for this age and for that which claims to be the church. The Lord has announced this long ago and it will surely come as judgment came upon Judah for all the abominable things they did. Reformation-revival movements are evidences, too, that the threatened judgment is not far away. As the end approaches God warns us and His Spirit presses home the truth once more to awaken the consciences of men. In 2Ch 36:15 we read the following words: And the LORD God of their fathers sent to them by His messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because He had compassion on His people, and on His dwelling place. But the next verse declares the failure of what the Lord had done in His compassion. But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words, and misused His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy. No remedy! an awful word it is. Judah in spite of the gracious revival under Josiah hastened on to the predicted doom, and so does this present age.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Josiah
called Josias, Mat 1:10.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
am 3363-3394, bc 641-610
Josiah: This prince was one of the best, if not the best, of all the Jewish kings since the time of David. He began well, continued well, and ended well. 1Ki 13:2, 2Ch 34:1, 2Ch 34:2-33, Jer 1:2, Zep 1:1, Mat 1:10, Josias
eight years old: 2Ki 11:21, 2Ki 21:1, Psa 8:2, Ecc 10:16, Isa 3:4
Boscath: This was a city in the plain country of the tribe of Judah; and is mentioned in the parallel passage along with Lachish and Eglon. Jos 15:39, Bozkath
Reciprocal: 1Ch 3:14 – Josiah
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE BOY-MONARCH
Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign.
2Ki 22:1
For all the years Josiah had been represented as one of the models of the Bible. Nothing appears in his history which the Lord seems to have disapproved. Four things there are in our verse which show the remarkableness of this boy-monarchs piety; these we note in turn.
I. First, he was so young in years.He was only sixteen at the time when he began to seek after the God of David his father. It is a fine thing to have an ambition to be good and great when one is as yet a mere boy. Once, as Goethes mother saw him crossing a street with his boyish companions, she was struck with the extraordinary gravity of his carriage of himself. She asked him laughingly whether he expected to distinguish himself from the others by his sedateness. The little fellow replied: I begin with this; later on in life I shall probably distinguish myself in far other ways from them.
II. Next, Josiahs piety was remarkable because he had had no paternal help.Two generations of awful wickedness lay behind him; Amon was his father, and Amon was the son of Manasseh. Josiah had no Bible; in those days the book of the law was lost. Jedidah is mentioned in the story; the name means beloved of Jehovah; and we really have a hope that Josiah felt the prayers and counsels of a pious mother.
When one is puzzled and baffled, perhaps even scandalised, by an older persons behaviour, let him bear in mind that he was never bidden to imitate anybody but Jesus Christ. Once a man told Augustine that a strong wish was in his heart to become a Christian, but the imperfections of other people who professed religion kept him back; and the excellent preacher replied thus: But you, yourself, lack nothing; what a neighbour lacks, be you for yourself; be a good Christian in order that you, by your consistency, may convince the most calumnious pagan!
III. Josiahs piety was also remarkable because he was reared in a palace of indolence and luxury.He was a kings heir, and was exposed to all the indulgence of easy-going life and the flatteries of court.
All this must be met by a resolute and devout heart. A youth with a real love for God and love for man has no miserable aristocracy of human rank in his disposition. In modern times, when the Duke of Gaudia arrived at Lisbon, and was waited upon by a man of quality who had received a royal order for that purpose from King Don John III, he noted that this suave companion kept giving him repeatedly the title of most illustrious Lord, even when he did no more than ask him if he was not fatigued by his journey; at last the duke told the courtier frankly that he was not so very tired yet, only wearied by so much illustriousness heaped on him.
IV. Again, Josiahs piety was remarkable because he was entrusted with the throne so early in his career.He became king at eight years of age. Unlimited power came into his hands when he was as yet a mere child. Around him were the old vicious parasites of the realm, the veteran placemen who had been living and fattening on his fathers favour.
Often a boy is a regular little tyrant, lording it over nurse, or brothers and sistersolder as well as youngeror whomsoever else he can make subject to his will for the time being. A child of eight years old needs to know how to rule well in his sphere. A responsibility for good government is on him. He ought to be made to feel it betimes. And Josiah bore gravely, as a boy, the burden of royalty.
Illustrations
(1) Even a child maketh himself known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right. Commonly it is before a child is eight years old that his character receives its permanent impress for good or evil, and that his line of conduct for life is indicated. Already he is either doing that which is right in the sight of the Lord, or doing that which is wrong in the Lords sight. How is it about the children of that age who are under your control?
(2) Much depends on the way one starts. It is said that, when the old Rudolph of Hapsburg was to be crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle, there was an imminent moment in which the pageant halted, for the imperial sceptre was mislaid by the attendants, and could not be found. The emperor was just in the act of investing the princes with their honours. With an admirable presence of mind, and in the true spirit of high religious chivalry of those times, he turned to the altar before which he stood; and, seizing from it the crucifix itself, exclaimed, With this will I govern!
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
2Ki 22:1-2. Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign Being young, he had not received any bad impressions from the example of his father and grandfather, but soon saw their errors, and God gave him grace to take warning by them. He saw his fathers sins, and considered, and did not the like, Eze 18:14. He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord See the power of divine grace! Although he was born of a wicked father, had neither had a good education given him, nor a good example set him, but many about him, who, no doubt, advised him to tread in his fathers steps, and few that gave him any good counsel; yet the grace of God makes him an eminent saint, cuts him off from the wild olive, grafts him into the good olive, and renders him fruitful to Gods glory, and the profit of myriads. He walked in a good way, and turned not aside, as some of his predecessors had done who began well, to the right hand or to the left. There are errors on both hands, but God kept him in the right way: he fell not either into superstition or profaneness.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 22:8. I have found the book of the law. This was the book of the law of the Lord by Moses, 2Ch 34:14; that is, in Mosess own handwriting. Lyranus, a rabbi, says, that Ahaz had burnt all the sacred books, as no doubt he did, that they might not testify against his wickedness; yet as this was a concealed book, it is likely to have been the autograph of Moses, because of the joy it excited. Josephus says that this was the Pentateuch or five books of Moses; but Chrysostom thinks it was the book of Deuteronomy only; a greater treasure than gold and silver.
2Ki 22:14. Huldah the prophetess, a woman of great reputation. The sybils prophesied with some celebrity among the gentiles; and Philip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied.
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 22:1 to 2Ki 23:30 a. The Reign and Reforms of Josiah.The fifty-seven years of the reigns of Manasseh and Amon were, according to Kings (not Chronicles), a period of apostasy, which probably continued for the first ten years of Josiah. The prophetic party had consequently remained out of power since the persecution of Manasseh (2Ki 21:16). They regained their influence by the discovery of the Book of the Law (2Ki 22:8). The prophetess Huldah, on being consulted, foretold that all the calamities predicted in the book would come true, but that Josiah should go to his grave in peace and not witness the ruin of his people (2Ki 22:16-20). The result of this message was, first, a drastic reformation of the Temple and the kingdom of Judah (2Ki 23:1-14), and, secondly, the destruction of the famous northern sanctuary of Bethel (2Ki 23:15-20). Finally, Josiah kept a solemn passover (2Ki 23:21-23), and suppressed those who practised occult arts (2Ki 23:24). Yet for all his unique goodness the judgment due to Manasseh was not averted (2Ki 23:25-27). Josiah was killed at Megiddo in an attempt to prevent the march of the king of Egypt to the Euphrates (2Ki 23:29 f.).
These chapters, like 2 Kings 21, are much influenced by Dt. The main part, like 2 Kings 11, 2Ki 12:4 ff., 2Ki 16:10-18, may come from the Temple archives.
2Ki 22:4. Hilkiah the high priest: it is doubtful whether this title was used before the Exile. Jehoiada is once thus called (2Ki 12:10), but he and Hilkiah are generally styled the priest.
2Ki 22:8. the book of the law: the general identity of this book with a large section of Dt. is now commonly assumed, though the question is by no means decided (pp. 74f., 89f., 231f.). The facts related in Kings which must be borne in mind are: (a) The apostasy, after the death of Hezekiah, had lasted for over seventy years, and the persecution (2Ki 21:16) may have included the destruction of the law-books. The finding of a copy is, therefore, not incredible. (b) It is called the book of the law here, and more generally a book in 2Ki 22:10. In 2Ki 23:25 mention is made of the Law of Moses, but he was regarded as the source of all Israelite law. The Chronicler (2Ch 34:14) expressly identifies the discovery of Hilkiah with the Law of Moses. (c) The book contained prophecies of destruction, and caused certain reforms to be carried out. These latter were: (i.) objects of idolatry and for the worship of the host of heaven were destroyed; (ii.) the priests of the high places were removed, and Jerusalem was made the only sanctuary; (iii.) Bethel, the great rival sanctuary, was destroyed. Deuteronomy, in addition to being full of threats against apostasy like those implied in this chapter, denounces the same sort of evils as those which Josiah endeavoured to extirpate. It should be noted that the account of Hilkiahs discovery does not directly attribute the book to Moses (but see 2Ki 23:25); it is the Chronicler who, more than three centuries later, assigns it to Moses, and implies that Hilkiah discovered the Pentateuch. The suggestion that Hilkiah himself forged the book and pretended to discover it is unworthy of consideration.
2Ki 22:14. in the second quarter: the AV has the strange rendering, in the college. The fact that at this great crisis an otherwise unknown person like the prophetess Huldah, and not Jeremiah, was consulted, is an argument for the genuineness of the statement.
2Ki 22:19. The Heb. as it stands indicates that something has fallen out. Perhaps, following LXX and Vulg., we should read: Inasmuch as thou hast heard my words and thine heart was tender. Josiah, like Ahab (1Ki 21:29), was told that he should not see the downfall of his house. Between 1Ki 22:30 and 2Ch 35:22 there is a curious coincidence, that both these kings, so different in character, disguised themselves before entering into the battles in which they died.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
JOSIAH’S GOOD REIGN
(22:1 – 23:30)
From Josiah’s beginning to reign at eight years of age, his reign was faithful and godly, for he walked in the ways of David, the first of Israel’s godly kings (v.2), just as we today should gain our instructions from the first days of Christianity rather than from men who have followed through the years. How much more important is the teaching of the apostles whom the Lord appointed than that of Martin Luther, J.N. Darby or any other outstanding man of history.
2Ch 34:3-7 tells us what is not recorded in 2 Kings, that in the eighth year of Josiah’s reign, at age 16, he began to seek the God of his father David, and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem of the high places and idolatrous images, making a clean sweep of every element of idolatry, even burning the bones of the idolatrous priests on their altars. In fact, he went beyond Judah in his zeal for the honour of God, doing the same in the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim and Simeon, as far as Naphtali. He did this in spite of the fact that these tribes were under Assyrian bondage and people from other nations had been introduced among them. Thus, at age 20, the faith of Josiah was remarkably energetic.
Chapter 22 of 2 Kings then begins with the record of Josiah’s initiative in repairing the house of God, which took place in his 18th year, the age of 26 (v.3). He had sent messengers to Manasseh and Ephraim, as well as Judah and Benjamin, to collect money for the purpose of repairing the house, which had lapsed into a degraded state through the abuse of Josiah’s father and grandfather (2Ch 34:8-9).
Now Josiah sends Shaphan the scribe to ask Hilkijah the high priest to count the money they had received and give it to those doing the work, who were overseers in the house of the Lord, – to carpenters, builders and masons – to buy timber and hewn stone to repair the house (vv.4-6). But, interestingly, they were not required to give any accounting of the way the money was spent, for they were depended on to deal faithfully. This is a lovely characteristic of a true revival among the people of God, not a humanly planned revival, though it did begin with the godly exercise of the young king, whose faith proved an effective example to others.
THE BOOK OF THE LAW DISCOVERED
(vv.8-20)
Though God had commanded in Deu 17:18-19 that the king of Israel was to write a copy of the law for himself and learn it well, Josiah did not even know that such a book existed. No doubt Manasseh and Amon had ignored God’s Word completely, so that when Hilkijah the high priest found the book of the law in the house of God, it was a total surprise to him and to Josiah. Certainly the high priest should have known the law, but the faith of Josiah was required to wake up the high priest. It is true in our day too, when there is genuine concern about the house of God, the Church, this will lead us to the Word of God.
When Shaphan the scribe read the Word of God to the king, Josiah was painfully shocked and tore his clothes (vv.10-11). For this was a message far more serious and solemn than he had ever expected. He commanded five of his servants, including the high priest and the scribe, to inquire of the Lord concerning the law and its warning of judgment against the very evils that Josiah had inherited from his fathers. For the scriptures plainly declared the wrath of God against the disobedience of which he knew his fathers were guilty (vv.12-13).
To ask about the book that so affected King Josiah, his servants went to a prophetess, Huldah, who lived in Jerusalem (v.14). It is sad that there were no male prophets to consult. At times of a low condition amongst God’s people, because of a sad faithlessness among men, the Lord will use a woman in the way a man would normally be used. Deborah is another example of this (Jdg 4:1-4).
Huldah was a faithful woman who told Josiah’s servants the plain, uncompromising truth from God: “Thus says the Lord, Behold, I will bring calamity on this place and on its inhabitants – all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read – because they have forsaken Me and burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke Me to anger with all the work of their hands. Therefore my wrath shall be aroused against this place and shall not be quenched” (vv.16-17). Huldah simply confirmed what Josiah had read in scripture, that a dreadful judgment would fall on Jerusalem, expressing the fierce anger of the Lord against their wickedness.
However, Huldah’s prophecy also held some measure of comfort for Josiah. Because his heart was tender, and therefore he had humbled himself before the Lord when he heard the Word of God, he had torn his clothes in self-judgment and had wept before the Lord, the Lord had taken full account of his repentance (vv.18-20). For this reason the Lord assured Josiah that he himself would be taken away by death before the time of Judah’s solemn calamity. This may remind us of Isa 57:1, “The righteous perish, and no man takes it to heart: merciful men are taken away, while no one considers that the righteous is taken away from the evil.” How often thus does God take away a godly person before some great trouble that would be most painful for him to witness!
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
D. Josiah’s Good Reign 22:1-23:30
Since Josiah was eight years old when his father died at age 22, he must have been born when Amon was only 14. It was very common, both in the ancient Near East generally and in Israel, for kings to marry very young and to father children when they were early teenagers. [Note: Nadav Na’aman, "Historical and Chronological Notes on the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the Eighth Century B.C.," Vetus Testamentum 36 (1986):83-91.]
The years Josiah ruled were 640-609 B.C., 31 years. During his reign Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, fell in 612 B.C., as did the Assyrian Empire in 609 B.C., to Babylon. Thus world leadership passed from Assyria to Babylon during Josiah’s reign. [Note: For a detailed study of the chronology of this period, see A. Malamat, "The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem," Israel Exploration Journal 18:3 (1968):137-56.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
1. Josiah’s goodness 22:1-2
Josiah was one of Judah’s best kings. He was one of the reformers who followed David’s good example (2Ki 22:2) all his life.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
JOSIAH
B.C. 639-608
2Ki 22:1-20; 2Ki 23:1-37
Jos., “Ant.,” X 4:1.
“In outline dim and vast
Their fearful shadows cast
The giant forms of Empires, on their way
To ruin: one by one
They tower, and they are gone.”
– KEBLE
IF we are to understand the reign of Josiah as a whole, we must preface it by some allusion to the great epoch-marking circumstances of his age, which explain the references of contemporary prophets, and which, in great measure, determined the foreign policy of the pious king.
The three memorable events of this brief epoch were,
(I.) the movement of the Scythians,
(II.) the rise of Babylon, and
(III.) the humiliation of Nineveh, followed by her total destruction.
I. Many of Jeremiahs earlier prophecies belong to this period, and we see that both he and Zephaniah-who was probably a great-great-grandson of King Hezekiah himself, and prophesied in this reign-are greatly occupied with a danger from the North which seems to threaten universal ruin.
So overwhelming is the peril that Zephaniah begins with the tremendously sweeping menace, “I will utterly consume all things of the earth, saith the Lord.”
Then the curse rushes down specifically upon Judah and Jerusalem; and the state of things which the prophet describes shows that, if Josiah began himself to seek the Lord at eight years old, he did not take-and was, perhaps, unable to take-any active steps towards the extinction of idolatry till he was old enough to hold in his own hand the reins of power.
For Zephaniah denounces the wrath of Jehovah on three classes of idolaters-viz.,
(1) the remnant of Baal-worshippers with their chemarim, or unlawful priests, and the syncretizing priests (kohanim) of Jehovah, who combine His worship with that of the stars, to whom they burn incense upon the housetops;
(2) the waverers, who swear at once by Jehovah and by Malcham, their king; and
(3) the open despisers and apostates.
“For all these the day of Jehovah is near; He has prepared them for sacrifice, and the sacrificers are at hand. {Zep 2:4-7} Gaza, Ashdod, Askelon, Ekron, the Cherethites, Canaan, Philistia, are all threatened by the same impending ruin, as well as Moab and Ammon, who shall lose their lands. Ethiopia, too, and Assyria shall be smitten, and Nineveh shall become so complete a desolation that pelicans and hedgehogs shall bivouac upon her chapiters, the owl shall hoot in her windows, and the crow croak upon the threshold. Crushed! desolated! and all that pass by shall hiss and wag their hands.” {Zep 2:12-15}
The pictures of the state of society drawn by Jeremiah do not, as we have seen, differ from those drawn by his contemporary. Jeremiah, too, writing perhaps before Josiahs reformation, complains that Gods people have forsaken the fountains of living water, to hew out for themselves broken cisterns. He complains of empty formalism in the place of true righteousness, and even goes so far as to say that backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah. {Jer 3:1-9} He, too, prophesies speedy and terrific chastisement. Let Judah gather herself into fenced cities, and save her goods by flight, for God is bringing evil from the North, and a great destruction.
“The lion is come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the nations is on his way; he is gone forth from his place to make thy land desolate; and thy cities shall be laid waste, without an inhabitant. Behold, he cometh as clouds, and his chariots shall be as the whirlwind.” Besiegers come from a far country, and give out their voice against the cities of Judah. The heart of the kings shall perish, and the heart of the princes; and the priests shall be astonished, and the prophets shall wonder.
“For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end”-and, “O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved!” {Jer 4:7-27}
“I will bring a nation upon you from far, O House of Israel, saith the Lord: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language”-unlike that of the Assyrians-“thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say. Their quiver is an open sepulcher, they are all mighty men. They shall batter thy fenced cities, in which thou trustest with weapons of war.” {Jer 5:15-17}
“O ye children of Benjamin, save your goods by flight: for evil is imminent from the North, and a great destruction. Behold, a people cometh from the North Country, and a great nation shall be raised from the farthest part of the earth. They lay hold on bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea; and they ride upon horses, set in array as men for war against thee, O daughter of Zion. We have heard the fame thereof: our hands wax feeble.” {Jer 6:1; Jer 6:22-24}
And the judgment is close at hand. The early blossoming bud of the almond tree is the type of its imminence. The seething caldron, with its front turned from the North, typifies an invasion which shall soon boil over and floor the land.
What was the fierce people thus vaguely indicated as coming from the North? The foes indicated in these passages are not the long-familiar Assyrians, but the Scytbians and Cimmerians.
As yet the Hebrews had only heard of them by dim and distant rumor. When Ezekiel prophesied they were still an object of terror, but he foresees their defeat and annihilation. They should be gathered into the confines of Israel, but only for their destruction {See Eze 37:1-28; Eze 39:1-29} The prophet is bidden to set his face towards Gog, of the land of Magog, the Prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him that God would turn him about, and put hooks in his jaws, and drive forth all his army of bucklered and sworded horsemen, the hordes of the uttermost part of the North. They should come like a storm upon the mountains of Israel, and spoil the defenseless villages; but they should come simply for their own destruction by blood and by pestilence. God should smite their bows out of their left hands, and their arrows out of the right, and the ravenous birds of Israel should feed upon the carcasses of their warriors. There should be endless bonfires of all the instruments of war, and the place of their burial should be called “the valley of the multitude of Gog.”
Much of this is doubtless an ideal picture, and Ezekiel may be thinking of the fall of the Chaldaeans. But the terms he uses remind us of the dim Northern nomads, and the names Rosh and Meshech in justaposition involuntarily recall those of Russia and Moscow.
Our chief historical authority respecting this influx of Northern barbarians is Herodotus. He tells us that the nomad Scythians, apparently a Turanian race, who may have been subjected to the pressure of population, swarmed over the Caucasus, dispossessed the Cimmerians (Gomer), and settled themselves in Saccasene, a province of Northern Armenia. From this province the Scythians gained the name of the Saqui. The name of Gog seems to be taken from Gugu, a Scythian prince, who was taken captive by Assurbanipal from the land of the Saqui. Magog is perhaps Matgugu, “land of Gog.” These rude, coarse warriors, like the hordes of Attila, or Zenghis Khan, or Tamerlane-who were descended from them-magnetized the imagination of civilized people, as the Huns did in the fourth century. They overthrew the kingdom of Urartis (Armenia), and drove the all-but exterminated remnant of the Moschi and Tabali to the mountain fortresses by the Black Sea, turning them, as it were, into a nation of ghosts in Sheol. Then they burst like a thunder-cloud on Mesopotamia, desolating the villages with their arrow-flights, but too unskilled to take fenced towns. They swept down the Shephelah of Palestine, and plundered the rich temple of Aphrodite (Astarte Ourania) at Askelon, thereby incurring the curse of the goddess in the form of a strange disease. But on the borders of Egypt they were diplomatically met by Psammetichus (d. 611) with gifts and prayers. Judah seems only to have suffered indirectly from this invasion. The main army of Scyths poured down the maritime plain, and there was no sufficient booty to tempt any but their straggling bands to the barren hills of Judah. It was the report of this over-flooding from the North which probably evoked the alarming prophecies of Zephaniah and Jeremiah, though they found their clearer fulfillment in the invasion of the Chaldees.
II. This rush of wild nomads averted for a time the fate of Nineveh.
The Medes, an Aryan people, had settled south of the Caspian, B.C. 790; and in the same century one of these tribes-the Persians-had settled southeast of Elam the northern coast of the Persian Gulf. Cyaxares founded the Median Empire, and attacked Nineveh. The Scythian invasion forced him to abandon the siege, and the Scythians burnt the Assyrian palace and plundered the ruins. But Cyaxares succeeded in intoxicating and murdering the Scythian leaders at a banquet, and bribed the army to withdraw. Then Cyaxares, with the aid of the Babylonians under Nabopolassar their rebel viceroy, besieged and took Nineveh-probably about B.C. 608-while its last king and his captains were reveling at a banquet.
The fall of Nineveh was not astonishing. The empire had long been “slowly bleeding to death” in consequence of its incessant wars. The city deemed itself impregnable behind walls a hundred feet high, on which three chariots could drive abreast, and mantled with twelve hundred towers; but she perished, and all the nations-whom she had known how to crush, but had with “her stupid and cruel tyranny” never known how to govern-shouted for joy-that joy finds its triumphant expression in more than one of the prophets, but specially in the vivid paean of Nahum. His date is approximately fixed at about B.C. 600, by his reference to the atrocities inflicted by Assurbnipal on the Egyptian city of No-Amon. “Art thou [Nineveh] better,” he asks, than No-Amon, “that was situate among the canals, that had the water round about her, whose rampart was the Nile, and her wall was the waters? Yet she went into captivity! Her young children were dashed to pieces at the head of all the streets: they cast lots for her honorable men, and all her great men were bound in chains. Thou also shalt be drunken: thou shalt faint away, thou shalt seek a stronghold because of the enemy.” {Nah 3:8-11}
All the details of her fall are dim; but Nineveh was, in the language of the prophets, swept with the besom of destruction. Her ruins became stones of emptiness, and the line of confusion was stretched over her. Nahum ends with the cry, –
“There is no assuaging of thy hurt; thy wound is grievous:
All that hear the bruit of this, clap the hands over thee:
For upon whom hath thy wickedness not passed continually?”
In truth, Assyria, the ferocious foe of Israel, of Judah, and all the world, vanished suddenly, like a dream when one awaketh; and those who passed over its ruins, like Xenophon and his Ten Thousand in B.C. 401, knew not what they were. Her very name had become forgotten in two centuries, “Etiam periere ruinae!” The burnt relics and cracked tablets of her former splendor began to be revealed to the world once more in 1842, and it is only during the last quarter of a century that the fragments of her history have been laboriously deciphered.
III Such were the events witnessed in their germs or in their completion by the contemporaries of Josiah and the prophets who adorned his reign. It was during this period, also, that the power to whom the ultimate ruin and captivity of Jerusalem was due sprang into formidable proportions. The ultimate scourge of God to the guilty people and the guilty city was not to be the Assyrian, nor the Scythian, nor the Egyptian, nor any of the old Canaanite or Semitic foes of Israel, nor the Phoenician, nor the Philistine. With all these she had long contended, and held her own. It was before the Chaldee that she was doomed to fall, and the Chaldee was a new phenomenon of which the existence had hardly been recognized as a danger till the warning prophecy of Isaiah to Hezekiah after the embassy of the rebel viceroy Merodach-Baladan.
It is to Habakkuk, in prophecies written very shortly after the death of Josiah, that we must look for the impression of terror caused by the Chaldees.
Nabopolassar, sent by the successor of Assurbanipal to quell a Chaldaean revolt, seized the viceroyalty of Babylon, and joined Cyaxares in the overthrow of Nineveh. From that time Babylon became greater and more terrible than Nineveh, whose power it inherited. Habakkuk {Hab 2:1-19} paints the rapacity, the selfishness, the inflated ambition, the cruelty, the drunkenness, the idolatry of the Chaldaeans. He calls them {Hab 1:5-11} a rough and restless nation, frightful and terrible, whose horsemen were swifter than leopards, fiercer than evening wolves, flying to gorge on prey like the vultures, mocking at kings and princes, and flinging dust over strongholds. Nor has he the least comfort in looking on their resistless fury, except the deeply significant oracle-an oracle which contains the secret of their ultimate doom-
“Behold, his soul is puffed up it is not upright in him:
But the righteous man shall live by his fidelity.”
The prophet places absolute reliance on the general principle that “pride and violence dig their own grave.”