2 4 (no parallel in Kings). The Names and the Fate of the other Sons of Jehoshaphat<\/p>\n
2<\/strong>. brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat<\/em> ] It was necessary to define brethren<\/em>, for the word by itself means no more than “kinsmen”; cp. 1Ch 12:2<\/span> (note).<\/p>\n Azariah<\/em> ] Since this name is repeated (with a slight variation of spelling) in the list it is probable that the text is corrupt. The error may be no more than the omission of some epithet which distinguished one Azariah from the other in the original text of the list. The LXX. gives no help.<\/p>\n king of Israel<\/em> ] Cp. 2Ch 11:3<\/span>, note.<\/p>\n Verse 2<\/span>. And he had brethren – the sons of Jehoshaphat, king of<\/B><\/I> <\/B>Israel.<\/B><\/I>] Jehoshaphat certainly was not king of Israel<\/I>, but king of Judah<\/I>. Yisrael must be a corruption in the text, for Yehudah<\/I>; which is the reading of the Syriac, Arabic,<\/I> Septuagint<\/I>, and Vulgate<\/I>: the Chaldee<\/I>, only agrees with the Hebrew text. And the reading of the versions<\/I> is supported by thirty-eight<\/I> of Kennicott’s<\/I> and De Rossi’s<\/I> MSS. The word Judah<\/I> should therefore be restored to the text.<\/P> <\/p>\n Azariah; <\/B>two sons called by the same name, though doubtless distinguished by some additional title, which is not mentioned here, because it did not concern succeeding ages to know it. Though indeed there is a difference in their Hebrew names, the one being Azariah<\/I>, the other Azariahu<\/I>, hu<\/I> being the last syllabic in his name, as in Elihu<\/I> and others. Jehoshaphat king of Israel<\/I>; so he is called, either, <\/P> 1. Because he was so by right. Or, <\/P> 2. Because he was king not only of Judah and Benjamin, but of a great number of Israelites, who had come into and settled themselves in his kingdom, in his and in his predecessors days; who being a considerable, and the purest and best, part of Israel, may well be called Israel, being more truly and properly Gods Israel than their apostate brethren, who were no longer worthy of that name. Or, <\/P> 3. Because all his subjects were Israelites; and therefore he was <\/P> king of Israel, <\/B>though not of all Israel. Or, <\/P> 4. With some reflection upon his memory for making so strict an alliance and friendship with the king of Israel, whose cause he defended with his own and his kingdoms great hazard, as if he had been the king not so much of Judah as of Israel. And this may be the rather noted here, because here speedily follows a sad effect of that wicked and cursed match. Some say Israel<\/I> was foisted into some copies by the transcriber instead of Judah, as it was first written. <\/P> <\/p>\n And he had brethren, the sons of Jehoshaphat<\/strong>,…. That is, Jehoram had, who succeeded him: their names follow,<\/p>\n Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah<\/strong>; two of them were of the same name; though it may be observed, that in the Hebrew text they are somewhat distinguished, the latter is called Azariah; Jehiel is said, by the Jews x, to be the same with Hiel that rebuilt Jericho; indeed it was rebuilt in the times of Jehoshaphat, and was a city of the tribe of Benjamin, Jos 18:21<\/span> which was under his jurisdiction; but it can never be thought that he would ever suffer a son of his to rebuild it; besides, he is expressly said to be a Bethelite, 1Ki 16:34<\/span>,<\/p>\n all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel<\/strong>; which generally, since the division of the kingdom, designs the ten tribes, but cannot be the meaning here, because Jehoshaphat was only king of two tribes, Judah and Benjamin; they were tribes of Israel indeed, and so he was king of a part of Israel; and besides, many out of the ten tribes came and settled in his kingdom, and were under his government; though some think he is so called, because he concerned himself so much for the kingdom of Israel, and more than for his own; but the Vulgate Latin, Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions, all read king of Judah; wherefore some are of opinion that Israel is a mistake of the transcriber; but this need not be supposed, since he was of right king of Israel, and was in fact king of two tribes that belonged to Israel.<\/p>\n x T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 29. 4.<\/p>\n REIGN OF JEHORAM<\/strong> (2Ch. 21:2-18<\/span>).<\/p>\n THE NEW KING MURDERS HIS SIX BROTHERS<\/strong> (2) Azariah . . . and Azariah.<\/strong>Heb. Azaryh<\/em> . . . and Azaryh,<\/em> different forms of the same name. All the versions give one form only. An old error of transcription may be involved (comp. 1Ch. 3:6<\/span>; 1Ch. 3:8<\/span>); but it is also possible that Jehoshaphat named two of his sons Azariah, Iah helpeth, in pious recognition of two several mercies. Shephatiah,<\/em> Iah judgeth, repeats his own name in inverted shape.<\/p>\n The other names areGod liveth, Iah remem-bereth, Who is like God? all significant of the kings faith.<\/p>\n Jehoshaphat king of Israel.<\/strong>The southern kingdom is called Israel in 2Ch. 12:1<\/span>; 2Ch. 12:6<\/span>; 2Ch. 21:4<\/span>; 2Ch. 28:19<\/span>; 2Ch. 28:27<\/span>, and elsewhere, as enjoying the legitimate monarchy, and maintaining the orthodox ritual and priesthood. Here, however, some Hebrew MSS., the LXX., Syriac, Vulg., and Arabic, read Judah.<\/p>\n (3) And their<\/strong> father gave them great gifts.<\/strong>Jehoshaphat before his death had provided for his sons, as Rehoboam before him had done for his, by appointing them resident governors of the national fortresses, and sending them away with valuable presents (2Ch. 11:23<\/span>).<\/p>\n Of silver, and of gold.<\/strong>The preposition (le<\/em>) belongs to the chroniclers style.<\/p>\n Precious things<\/strong> (migdnth;<\/em> Gen. 24:53<\/span>).Such as jewels, robes, and spices.<\/p>\n Because he was the firstborn.<\/strong>This was the rule. (Comp. Deu. 21:15-17<\/span>.) For exceptions, see 1Ch. 28:5<\/span>; 2Ch. 11:22<\/span>; 2Ch. 36:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n (4) Now when Jehoram was risen up to the kingdom of his father.<\/strong>Literally, And<\/em> Jehoram arose over the kingdom,<\/em> &c., a peculiar expression, only found here. It seems to mean, established himself on the throne.<\/em> (See Exo. 1:8<\/span> for a similar phrase, and comp. the use of the same verb, 1Sa. 24:20<\/span>.)<\/p>\n He strengthened himself.<\/strong>Secured his hold of power (2Ch. 1:1<\/span>; 2Ch. 1:12<\/span>, &c).<\/p>\n And slew all his brethren.<\/strong>In order to prevent intrigues against himself. Such ruthless crimes have been customary at Oriental accessions, and are one of the natural results of polygamy. (Comp. the conduct of Abimelech (Jdg. 9:5<\/span>) and of Athaliah (2Ch. 22:10<\/span>). It was thus that Jehoram strengthened himself.<\/p>\n And divers also of the princes of Israel.<\/strong>Some of the great chiefs of the clans, whose power or sympathy with his murdered brothers Jehoram may have dreaded. Or, like other Oriental despots, Jehoram may have acted from no other motive than a rapacious desire to confiscate their wealth. Some suppose that both his brethren and these princes had given signs of dissatisfaction at Jehoram and Athalians heathen policy. (Comp. 2Ch. 21:13<\/span>, thy brethren . . . which were better than thyself.)<\/p>\n 2Ch 21:2<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Jehoshaphat king of Israel<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> King of Judah; <\/em>Houbigant; after almost all the ancient versions. <\/p>\n 2Ch 21:2 And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah: all these [were] the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.<\/p>\n Ver. 2. King of Israel.<\/strong> ] Of all Israel by right; but really, of a part of them only.<\/p>\n Israel. This word was originally represented by the abbreviation (i or y), which was read for “Israel” as well as Judah. The reading in the Severus Codex (see App-34) is “Judah”, and this is supported by the first edition of the Hagiographa (Naples, 1486-1487), the Complutensian Polyglot, Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate. This same note applies to 2Ch 28:19, where the same phenomena occur. <\/p>\n Israel: Jehoshaphat was certainly not king of Israel, but of Judah: Yisrael must therefore be a mistake for Yehoodah; which is the reading of thirty-eight of Dr. Kennicott’s and De Rossi’s manuscripts, and of the Syriac, Arabic, Septuagint, and Vulgate. 2Ch 21:4, 2Ch 12:6, 2Ch 23:2, 2Ch 24:5, 2Ch 24:16, 2Ch 28:19, 2Ch 28:23, 2Ch 28:27, 2Ch 33:18, 2Ch 35:18<\/p>\n 2Ch 21:2. And Azariah Hebrew, , Azaria-hu, distinguished by the last syllable, hu, from the Azariah mentioned in the former clause. Of Jehoshaphat king of Israel So he is called, either, 1st, Because he was so by right: or, 2d, Because he was king not only of Judah and Benjamin, but of a great number of Israelites, who had come and settled in his kingdom.<\/p>\n 21:2 And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah: all these [were] the sons of Jehoshaphat king of {a} Israel.<\/p>\n (a) Read 2Ch 15:17 how by Israel he meant Judah.<\/p>\n And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah: all these [were] the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel. 2 4 (no parallel in Kings). The Names and the Fate of the other Sons of Jehoshaphat 2. brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat ] It was … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Chronicles 21:2”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11638","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11638","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11638"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11638\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11638"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
(2Ch. 21:2-4<\/span>).<\/p>\nFuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"