4<\/strong>. This<\/em> is the thing that ye shall do<\/em> ] The main features of the arrangement as given here and in 2 Kin. are clear, although some details are obscure. From Kings it appears that it was the custom on the Sabbath for two-thirds of the royal guards to be free and for one-third to be on duty at the palace. In order to avoid arousing suspicion this last third was, according to Jehoiada’s directions, to be at the palace as usual, but it was to be subdivided into thirds and so distributed as to close the various means of communication between the palace and the rest of the city. Thus Athaliah was to be held as in a trap by her own guards (2Ki 11:5-6<\/span>). The two-thirds who were free from duty on the Sabbath were to be stationed in the Temple about the young king to guard him at his coronation.<\/p>\n The arrangements are differently (and no doubt less accurately) stated in Chron. In the first place Levitical Temple guards take the place of the royal guards, secondly, the only division of the guards recognised is a simple division into thirds, finally, the stations of the different divisions are differently given, viz., one-third in the Temple, one-third in the palace, and one-third at “the gate of the foundation.”<\/p>\n Using the modern terms “battalion” and “company” for the divisions and subdivisions given in Kings, the arrangements may be stated in a form which allows easy comparison between Kings and Chron., as fallows: <\/p>\n (A) 2Ki 11:5-7<\/span>.<\/p>\n (Royal guards in three battalions.)<\/p>\n 1st battalion on duty at the king’s house (palace).<\/p>\n A company within the palace (2Ch 23:5<\/span>),<\/p>\n B company at the gate of Sur ( SVR<\/em> Heb.),<\/p>\n C company at another gate (“behind the guard,” 2Ch 23:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2nd and 3rd battalions off duty, but brought into the house of the Lord (the Temple) by Jehoiada (2Ch 23:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n (B) 2Ch 23:4-5<\/span>.<\/p>\n (Levites in three bands.)<\/p>\n Band I. (= 1st battalion C company of 2 Kin.) in the house of God, the Chronicler supposing that “the house” (2Ki 11:6<\/span>) means the house of the Lord. More probably it means “the house of the king” (2Ki 11:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n Band II. (= 1st battalion A company of 2 Kin.) at the king’s house (so 2 Kin.).<\/p>\n Band III. (= 1st battalion B company of 2 Kin.) at the gate of “the foundation” ( JSVD<\/em> Heb.).<\/p>\n (The Chronicler passes over the 2nd and 3rd battalions, because he has already assigned their duty to 1st battalion C company.)<\/p>\n of the priests and of the Levites<\/em> ] Not in Kings. The words are a mistaken gloss of the Chronicler, for it is clear that in Kings lay<\/em> guards are meant.<\/p>\n porters of the doors<\/em> ] R.V. mg., of the thresholds<\/strong>, i.e. of the Temple acc. to the Chronicler, for the word for “doors” (or “thresholds,” sippim<\/em> in Heb.) is always used for the thresholds of some sanctuary<\/em>, e.g. of the Tabernacle (1Ch 9:19<\/span>; 1Ch 9:22<\/span>), of the Temple of Solomon (2Ch 3:7<\/span>), of (apparently) some Israelite shrine (Amo 9:1<\/span>). In the parallel passage (2Ki 11:6<\/span>) however “the watch of the house” clearly means “the watch of the king’s house” ( ibid.<\/em> 2Ki 11:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n 5<\/strong>. a third<\/em> part shall be at the king’s house; and a third<\/em> part at the gate of the foundation<\/em> ] These two-thirds according to the scheme given above were both stationed about the palace, but they are not<\/em> to be reckoned as two-thirds of the whole guard<\/em>.<\/p>\n the gate of the foundation<\/em> ] “Gate of JSVD<\/em> ” (Heb.). This is certainly the “Gate of Sur” ( SVR<\/em> in Heb.) of 2Ki 11:6<\/span>. Probably however we should read “Gate of SVS<\/em> (or SVSIM<\/em>),” i.e. “Horse Gate” (2Ch 23:15<\/span>; cp. 2Ki 11:16<\/span>) both here and in Kings.<\/p>\n The writer of Chronicles relates the orders that were given to the Levites, the author of Kings those received by the royal body-guard (2Ki 11:5<\/span> note).<\/P><\/p>\n Both that of Sur, 2Ki 11:6<\/span>, and other doors adjoining or leading to it. <\/P> <\/p>\n 4-9. This is the thing that ye shalldo<\/B>The arrangements made for defense are here described. Thepeople were divided into three bodies; one attended as guards to theking, while the other two were posted at all the doors and gates, andthe captains and military officers who entered the temple unarmed tolull suspicion, were furnished with weapons out of the sacred armory,where David had deposited his trophies of victory and which wasreopened on this occasion.<\/P><\/p>\n [See comments on 2Ch 23:1]<\/span>.<\/p>\n The case is similar with the contradictions in the account of the carrying out of the arrangements agreed upon. In Bertheau’s view, this is the state of the case: According to 2Ki 11:5-8<\/span>, the one part of the body-guard, which on Sabbath mounted guard in the royal palace, were to divide themselves into three bands: one third was to keep the guard of the royal house, which was certainly in the neighbourhood of the main entrance; the second third was to stand at the gate Sur, probably a side-gate of the palace; the third was to stand behind the door of the runners. The other part of the body-guard, on the other hand – all those who were relieved on the Sabbath – were to occupy the temple, so as to defend the young king. But according to the representation of the Chronicle, (1) the priests and the Levites were to divide themselves into three parts: the first third, those of the priests and Levites, who entered upon their duties on the Sabbath, were to be watchers of the thresholds (cf. on 1Ch 9:19<\/span>.), i.e., were to mount guard in the temple as usual; the second third was to be in the house of the king (i.e., where the first third was to keep watch, according to 2 Kings); the third was to be at the gate Jesod. Then (2) the whole people were to stand in the courts of the temple, and, according to 2Ch 23:6<\/span>, were to observe the ordinance of Jahve (2Ch 13:11<\/span>), by which they were forbidden to enter the temple. From this Bertheau then concludes: “The guarding of the house of Jahve for the protection of the king (2Ki 11:7<\/span>) has here become a .” But in opposition to this, we have to remark that in 2Ki 11:5-8<\/span> is it not said that the royal body-guard was to be posted as guards in the royal palace and in the temple; that is only a conclusion from the fact that Jehoiada conferred on the matter with the of the executioners and runners, i.e., of the royal satellites, and instructed these centurions, that those entering upon the service on Sabbath were to keep watch in three divisions, and those retiring from the service in two divisions, in the following places, which are then more accurately designated. The one division of those entering upon the service were to stand, according to 2 Kings, by the gate Sur; according to the Chronicle, by the gate Jesod. The second, according to 2 Kings, was to keep the guard of the king’s house; according to the Chronicle, it was to be in or by the king’s house. The third was, according to 2 Kings, to be by (in) the gate behind the runners, and to keep the guard of the house Massach; according to the Chronicle, they were to serve as watchers of the thresholds. If, as is acknowledged by all, the gate is identical with the gate , – although it can neither be ascertained whether the difference in name has resulted merely from an orthographical error, or rests upon a double designation of one gate; nor yet can it be pointed out what the position of this gate, which is nowhere else mentioned, was, – then the Chronicle and 2 Kings agree as to the posts which were to occupy this door. The position also of the third part, (Chron.), will not be different from that of the third part, to which was committed the guarding of the king’s house (Kings). The place where this third part took up its position is not exactly pointed out in either narrative, yet the statement, “to keep the watch of the house (temple) for warding off” (Kings), agrees with the appointment “to be guards of the thresholds” (Chron.), since the guarding of the thresholds has no other aim than to prevent unauthorized persons from entering. Now, since the young king, not merely according to the Chron., but also according to 2Ki 11:4<\/span>, – where we are told that Jehoiada showed the son of the king to the chief men whom he had summoned to the house of Jahve, – was in the temple, and only after his coronation and Athaliah’s death was led solemnly into the royal palace, we might take the king’s house, the guard of which the one third of those entering upon the service were to keep (2Ki 11:7<\/span>), to be the temple building in which the young king was, and interpret in accordance with that idea. In that case, there would be no reference to the settling of guards in the palace; and that view would seem to be favoured by the circumstance that the other third part of those entering upon their service on the Sabbath were to post themselves at the gate, behind the runners, and keep the guard of the house . That is not a nom. propr.<\/em>, but appellat.<\/em>, from , to ward off, signifying warding off, is unanimously acknowledged by modern commentators; only Thenius would alter into , “and shall ward off.” Gesenius, on the contrary, in his Thesaurus<\/em>, takes the word to be a substantive, cum <\/em> per appositionem conjunctum <\/em>, in the signification, the guard for warding off, and translates, et vos agetis custodiam templi ad depellendum sc. populum <\/em> (to ward off). If this interpretation be correct, then these words also do not treat of a palace guard; and to take to signify the temple is so evidently suggested by the context, according to which the high priest conducted the whole transaction in the temple, that we must have better grounds for referring the words to the royal palace than the mere presumption that, because the high priest discussed the plan with the captains of the royal body-guard, it must be the occupation of the royal palace which is spoken of.<\/p>\n But quite apart from the Chronicle, even the further account of the matter in 2 Kings 11 is unfavourable to the placing of guards in the royal palace. According to 2Ch 23:9<\/span>, the captains did exactly as Jehoiada commanded. They took each of them their men – those coming on the Sabbath, and those departing – and went to the priest Jehoiada, who gave them David’s weapons out of the house of God (2Ch 23:10<\/span>), and the satellites stationed themselves in the court of the temple, and there the king was crowned. The unambiguous statement, 2Ch 23:9<\/span>, that the captains, each with his men – i.e., those coming on Sabbath (entering upon the service), and those departing – came to the high priest in the temple, and there took up their position in the court, decisively excludes the idea that “those coming on the Sabbath” had occupied the guard-posts in the royal palace, and demands that the divisions mentioned in 2Ch 23:5<\/span> and 2Ch 23:6<\/span> should be posted at different parts and gates of the temple. That one third part had assigned to it a place behind the gate of the runners is not at all inconsistent with the above idea; for even if the gate behind the runners be identical with the gate of the runners (2Ki 11:19<\/span>), it by no means follows from that that it was a gate of the palace, and not of the outer court of the temple. In accordance with this view, then, 2Ki 11:5<\/span>, 2Ki 11:6<\/span> do not treat of an occupation of the royal palace, but of a provision for the security of the temple by the posting of guards. It is, moreover, against the supposition that the entrances to the palace were occupied by guards, that Athaliah, when she heard from her palace the noise of the people in the temple, came immediately into the temple, and was dragged forth and slain by the captains there in command. For what purpose can they have placed guards by the palace gates, if they did not desire to put any hindrance in the way of the queen’s going forth into the temple? The hypotheses of Thenius, that it was done to keep away those who were devoted to Athaliah, to make themselves masters of the palace, and to hinder Athaliah from taking any measures in opposition to them, and to guard the place of the throne, are nothing but expedients resulting from embarrassment. If there was no intention to put any hindrance in the way of the queen leaving the palace, there could have been none to prevent her taking opposing measures. For the rest, the result obtained by careful consideration of the account in 2 Kings 11, that in 2Ch 23:5<\/span>, 2Ch 23:6<\/span> an occupation by guards, not of the royal palace, but of the temple, is spoken of, does not stand or fall with the supposition that was the dwelling of the young king in the temple building, and not the palace. The expression , to guard the guard of the king’s house, i.e., to have regard to whatever is to be regarded in reference to the king’s house, is so indefinite and elastic, that it may have been used of a post which watched from the outer court of the temple what was going on in the palace, which was over against the temple. With this also the corresponding , in the short account of the distribution of the guards given by the chronicler (2Ch 23:5<\/span>), may be reconciled, if we translate it “at the house of the king,” and call to mind that, according to 2Ki 16:18<\/span> and 1Ki 10:5<\/span>, there was a special approach from the palace to the temple for the king, which this division may have had to guard. But notwithstanding the guarding of this way, Athaliah could come from the palace into the court of the temple by another way, or perhaps the guards were less watchful at their posts during the solemnity of the young king’s coronation.<\/p>\n And not less groundless is the assertion that the priest Jehoiada availed himself in the execution of his plan, according to 2 Kings 11, mainly of the co-operation of the royal body-guard, according to the Chronicle mainly of that of the Levites; or that the chronicler, as Thenius expresses it, “has made the body-guards of 2 Kings into Levites, in order to diver to the priesthood the honour which belonged to the Praetorians.” The , mentioned by name in the Chronicle, with whom Jehoiada discussed his plan, and who had command of the guards when it was carried out, are not called Levites, and may consequently have been captains of the executioners and runners, i.e., of the royal body-guard, as they are designated in 2Ki 11:4<\/span>. But the men who occupied the various posts are called in both texts (2Ki 11:5<\/span>; 2Ch 23:4<\/span>): in 2Ki 11:7<\/span> and 2Ki 11:9<\/span>, the corresponding is added; while in the Chronicle the are expressly called Levites, the words being added. But we know from Luk 1:5<\/span>, compared with 1 Chron 24, that the priests and Levites performed the service in the temple in courses from one Sabbath to another, while we have no record of any such arrangement as to the service of the Praetorians; so that we must understand the words “coming on the Sabbath” (entering upon the service), and “going on the Sabbath” (those relieved from it), of the Levites in the first place. Had it been intended that by these words in 2 Kings 11 we should understand Praetorians, it must necessarily have been clearly said. From the words spoken to the centurions of the body-guard, “the third part of you,” etc., it does not follow at all as a matter of course that they were so, any more than from the fact that in 2Ki 11:11<\/span>, the posts set are called , the runners = satellites. If we suppose that in this extraordinary case the Levitic temple servants were placed under the command of centurions of the royal body-guard, who were in league with the high priest, the designation of the men they commanded by the name , satellites, is fully explained; the men having been previously more accurately described as those who were entering upon and being relieved from service on the Sabbath. In this way I have explained the matter in my apologet. Versuch ber die Chron.<\/em> S. 362ff., but this explanation of it has neither been regarded nor confuted by Thenius and Bertheau. Even the mention of and along with the captains and the whole people, in 2Ki 11:19<\/span>, is not inconsistent with it; for we may without difficulty suppose, as has been said in my commentary on that verse, that the royal body-guard, immediately after the slaughter of Athaliah, went over to the young king just crowned, in order that they, along with the remainder of the people who were assembled in the court, might lead him thence to the royal palace. There is only one statement in the two texts which can scarcely be reconciled with this conjecture, – namely, the mention of the and of the people in the temple before Athaliah was slain (2Ch 23:12<\/span> and 2Ki 11:13<\/span> Kings), since it follows from that that runners or satellites belonging to the body-guard were either posted, or had assembled with the others, in the court of the temple. To meet this statement, we must suppose that the centurions of the body-guard employed not merely the Levitic temple guard, but also some of the royal satellites, upon whose fidelity they could rely, to occupy the posts mentioned in 2Ki 11:5-7<\/span> and 2Ch 23:4<\/span>, 2Ch 23:5<\/span>; so that the company under the command of the centurions who occupied the various posts in the temple consisted partly of Levitic temple guards, and partly of royal body-guards. But even on this view, the suspicion that the chronicler has mentioned the Levites instead of the body-guard is shown to be groundless and unjust, since the also are mentioned in the Chronicle.<\/p>\n According to this exposition, the true relation between the account in the Chronicle and that in the book of Kings would seem to be something like this: Both accounts mention merely the main points of the proceedings, – the author of the book of Kings emphasizing the part played in the affair by the royal body-guard; the author of the Chronicle, on the other hand, emphasizing that played by the Levites: so that both accounts mutually supplement each other, and only when taken together give a full view of the circumstances. We have still to make the following remarks on the narrative of the Chronicle in detail. The statement (2Ki 11:5<\/span>) that all those relived on the Sabbath were to keep guard of the house of Jahve, in reference to the king, in two divisions, is in 2Ch 23:5<\/span>, thus generalized: “all the people were in the courts of the house of Jahve.” is all the people except the before-mentioned bodies of men with their captains, and comprehends not only the remainder of the people mentioned in 2Ki 11:13<\/span> and 2Ki 11:19<\/span>, who came to the temple without any special invitation, but also the body of guards who were relieved from service on Sabbath. This is clear from 2Ch 23:8<\/span> of the Chronicle, where we have the supplementary remark, that those departing on the Sabbath also, as well as those coming, did what Jehoiada commanded. In addition to this, in 2Ch 23:6<\/span> this further command of Jehoiada is communicated: Let no one enter the house of Jahve ( is the temple building, i.e., the holy place and the most holy, as distinguished from the courts), save the priests, and they that minister of the Levites, i.e., of those Levites who perform the service, who are consecrated thereto; but all the people shall keep the watch of the Lord, i.e., keep what is to be observed in reference to Jahve, i.e., here, to keep without the limits appointed in the law to the people in drawing near to the sanctuaries. The whole verse, therefore, contains only an elucidation of the command that all the people were to remain in the courts, and not to press farther into the sanctuary.<\/p>\n (4) This is the thing that ye shall do.<\/strong>2Ki. 11:5<\/span> : And he charged them saying, This is the thing, (&c. There he charges the captains of the guard as being the leaders of the conspiracy.<\/p>\n A third.<\/strong>The third.<\/em> So 2Ch. 23:5<\/span>. The third of you who come in on the Sabbath is read also in 2Ki. 11:5<\/span>. The chronicler has added the explanatory words: belonging to the priests and to the Levites. This can hardly be harmonised with 2Ki. 12:4-12<\/span> – The chronicler may have misunderstood the words, which in the older account designate the royal guard; and it might have appeared to him impossible that any but members of the sacred orders would be called together in the Temple<\/em> by the high priest. (Comp. 2Ch. 23:5-6<\/span> with 2Ki. 11:4<\/span> : brought them into<\/em> the house of the Lord.<\/em>) But he may also have had before him an account in which the part taken by the sacerdotal caste in the revolution was made much more of than m the account of Kings. Moreover the priests and Levites would be likely to play a considerable part in a movement tending to the overthrow of a cultus<\/em> antagonistic to their own, especially when that movement originated with their own spiritual head, and was transacted in the sanctuary to which they were attached. The chronicler, therefore, cannot with fairness be accused of arbitrary alterations, unless it be presupposed that his sole<\/em> authority in writing this account was the Second Book of Kings. The priests and Levites used to do duty in the Temple from Sabbath to Sabbath, so that one course relieved another at the end of each week. (See 1 Chronicles 24<\/span>; Luk. 1:5<\/span>.) That the companies of the royal guards succeeded each other on duty in the same fashion is clear from the parallel narrative.<\/p>\n Shall be porters of the doors.<\/strong>Warders of the thresholds,<\/em> that is, of the Temple (1Ch. 9:19<\/span>; 1Ch. 9:22<\/span>). 1Ki. 11:5<\/span> says: The third of you that come in on the Sabbath, they shall keep the guard of the kings house;<\/em> the latter part of which answers to the first sentence of the next verse: And the third part (shall be) at the kings house. The kings house in Kings means the royal palace; the chronicler appears to mean by it his temporary dwelling within the Temple precincts.<\/p>\n 2Ch 23:4 This [is] the thing that ye shall do; A third part of you entering on the sabbath, of the priests and of the Levites, [shall be] porters of the doors;<\/p>\n Ver. 4. This is the thing that ye shall do.<\/strong> ] See 2Ki 11:9<\/span> . <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Entering on the sabbath day.<\/strong> ] The better day the better deed.<\/p>\n doors = thresholds. Especially that of Sur (2Ki 11:6). <\/p>\n entering: 1Ch 23:3-6, 1Ch 24:3-6, Luk 1:8, Luk 1:9 <\/p>\n porters: 1Ch 26:13-16 <\/p>\n doors: Heb. thresholds <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Ki 11:6 – the gate of Sur 1Ch 9:19 – over the host 1Ch 24:19 – the orderings 2Ch 8:14 – the courses Ecc 10:10 – wisdom Act 4:1 – the captain<\/p>\n 2Ch 23:4-5. A third part of you shall be porters of the doors Or rather, guards at the gates, to prevent any of Athaliahs party from entering into the temple. At the gate of the foundation So called, because it stood lower than the rest of the doors, at the foot of the steps by which they went up from the kings house to the temple. And all the people shall be in the courts In the two courts; for by the people here he seems to intend both the generality of the Levites, who had no particular station assigned them, such as their brethren had, and who were to be in the court of the priests, and the people who were in the court of the people.<\/p>\n This [is] the thing that ye shall do; A third part of you entering on the sabbath, of the priests and of the Levites, [shall be] porters of the doors; 4. This is the thing that ye shall do ] The main features of the arrangement as given here and in 2 Kin. are clear, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Chronicles 23:4”<\/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-11672","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11672","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=11672"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11672\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/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","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"