Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

The establishment of this superior court was in form, indeed, the commencement of a new institution; but in reality it was only the expansion or firmer organization of a court of final appeal already provided by Moses, the duties of which had been until then performed partly by the high priest, partly by the existing civil heads of the people (the judges and kings). When Moses, at Iloreb, set judges over the people, he commanded them to bring to him the matters which were too difficult for them to decide, that he might settle them according to decisions obtained of God (Ex. xviii. 26 and 19). At a later time he ordained (Deut. xvii. 8 ff.) that for the future the judges in the various districts and cities should bring the more difficult cases to the Levitic priests and the judge at the place where the central sanctuary was, and let them be decided by them. In thus arranging, he presupposes that Israel would have at all times not only a high priest who might ascertain the will of God by means of the Urim and Thummim, but also a supreme director of its civil affairs at the place of the central sanctuary, who, in common with the priests, i.e. the high priest, would give decisions in cases of final appeal (see the commentary on Deut. xvii. 8-13). On the basis of these Mosaic arrangements, Jehoshaphat set up a supreme court in Jerusalem, with the high priest and a lay president at its head, for the decision of causes which up till that time the king, either alone or with the cooperation of the high priest, had decided. For further information as to this supreme court, see in my bibl. Archdol. ii. S. 250 f.

Chap. xx. Jehoshaphat' s victory over the Moabites, Ammonites, and other nations; and the remaining items of information as to his reign. — Vers. 1-30. The victory over the hostile peoples who invaded Judah. In the succeeding time, the Moabites and Ammonites, in alliance with other tribes of Mount Seir, invaded Judah with the purpose of driving the people of God out of their country, and extirpating them (ver. 1). On being informed of this invasion, Jehoshaphat sought help of the Lord, while he proclaimed a fast in the land, and in the temple before the assembled people prayed God for His help (vers. 2—12); and received by the mouth of the prophet Jahaziel the promise that God would fight for Judah, and that king and people would next day behold the help the Lord would give (vers. 13-18). And so it happened. On the following day, when the Judsean army, with the Levitic singers and players at their head, came into the wilderness Jeruel, their enemies had by the dispensation of God mutually destroyed each other (vers. 19-24), so that Jehoshaphat and his people found the proposed battle-field full of corpses, and gathered spoil for three days, and then on the fourth day, in the Valley of Blessing, they praised the Lord for the wonderful deliverance; thereafter returning to Jerusalem with joy, again to thank the Lord in the house of God for His help (vers. 25-30).

Ver. 1 f. By I5"<,'?i1^j postea, the war which follows is made to fall in the latter part of Jehoshaphat's reign, but certainly not in the last year in which he reigned alone, two years before his death, but only somewhat later than the events in chap, xviii. and xix., which occurred six or seven years before his death. Along with the Moabites and Ammonites there marched against Jehoshaphat also D^iftyrift. This statement is obscure. Since |£ has unquestionably a partitive or local signification, we might take the word to signify, enemies who dwelt aside from the Ammonites (|D as in 1 Sam. xx. 22, 37), which might possibly be the designation of tribes in the Syro-Arabic desert bordering upon the country of the Ammonites on the north and east; and ttJBB in ver. 2 would seem to favour this idea. But vers. 10 and 22 f. are scarcely reconcilable with this interpretation, since there, besides or along with the sons of.Ammon and Moab, inhabitants of Mount Seir are named as enemies who had invaded Judah. Now the Edomites dwelt on Mount Seir; but had the Edomites only been allies of the Ammonites and Moabites, we should expect simply D'lK *pa or Mfrm, or TW *J3 (cf. xxv. 11, 14). Nor can it be denied that the interpretation which makes D^iSgnD to denote peoples dwelling beyond the Ammonites is somewhat artificial and far-fetched. Under these circumstances, the alteration proposed by Ililler in Onomast. p. 285 commends itself, viz. the change of D\31DynD into D^JJSnp, Maunites or Maonites, — a tribe whose headquarters were the city Maan in the neighbourhood of Petra, to the east of the WadyMusa; see on 1 Chron. iv. 41. Maan lay upon Mount Seir, i.e. in the mountainous district to the west of the Arabah, which stretches upwards from the head of the Dead Sea to the Elanitic Gulf, now called Jebal (Gebalene) in its northern part, and es-Sherah in the south. The Maunites were consequently inhabitants of Mount Seir, and are here mentioned instead of the Edomites, as being a people dwelling on the southern side of the mountain, and probably of non-Edomitic origin, in order to express the idea that not merely the Edomites took part in the campaign of the Ammonites and Moabites, but also tribes from all parts of Mount Seir. In chap. xxvi. 7 the CWO are mentioned along with Arabs and Philistines as enemies of Israel, who had been conquered by Uzziah. These circumstances favour the proposed alteration; while, on the contrary, the fact that the LXX. have here i/c twv Mtvaiayv for D^isynp proves little, since these translators have rendered D^BVn in xxvi. 8 also by ol Mcvatoi, there erroneously making the Ammonites Minaiites. — Ver. 2. Then they came and announced to Jehoshaphat, sc. messengers or fugitives; the subject is indefinite, and is to be supplied from the context. " Against thee there cometh a great multitude from beyond the (Dead) sea." D"}-9 also has no suitable sense here, since in the whole narrative nothing is said of enemies cominir out of Syria; we should read SIWO with Calmet and others. As the enemy made their attack from the south end of the Dead Sea, the messengers announce that they were come from Edom. " Behold, they are in Hazazon-Tamar," i.e. Engedi, the present Ain Jidy, midway along the west coast of the Dead Sea (see on Josh. xv. 62 and Gen. xiv. 7), about fifteen hours from Jerusalem.

Vers. 3-13. This report filled Jehoshaphat with fear, and he resolved to seek help of the Lord. WB }nj=*a DV^? cf. 2 Kings xii. 18, Jer. xlii. 15, to direct the face to anything, i.e. to purpose something, come to a determination. He proclaimed a fast in all Judah, that the people might bow themselves before God, and supplicate His help, as was wont to be done in great misfortunes; cf. Judg. xx. 26, 1 Sam. vii. 6, Isa. ii. 15. In consequence of the royal appeal, Judah came together to seek of the Lord, i.e. to pray for help, by fasting and prayer in the temple; and it was not only the inhabitants of Jerusalem who thus assembled, for they came out of all the cities of the kingdom. niTO 8PS3 to seek of the Lord, sc. help, is expressed in the last clause by iflrPTlK BPj?^ to seek the Lord. — Ver. 5. When the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem had assembled themselves in the house of God, Jehoshaphat came forth before the new court and made supplication in fervent prayer to the Lord. The new court is the outer or great court of the temple, which Solomon had built (iv. 9). It is here called the new court, probably because it had been restored or extended under Jehoshaphat or Asa. This court was the place where the congregation assembled before God in the sanctuary. Jehoshaphat placed himself before it, i.e. at the entrance into the court of the priests, so that the congregation stood opposite to him. — Yer. 6 ff. The prayer which Jehoshaphat directed to Jahve the God of the fathers, as the almighty Ruler over ail kingdoms, consists of a short representation of the circumstances of the case. Jahve had given the land to His people Israel for an everlasting possession, and Israel had built a sanctuary to His name therein (vers. 7 and 8); but they had in no way provoked the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites to fall upon them, and to drive them out of their land (vers. 10 and 11). On these two facts Jehoshaphat founds his prayer for help, in a twofold manner: in respect to the first, calling to mind the divine promise to hear the prayers offered up to God in the temple (ver. 9); and in reference to the second, laying emphasis upon the inability of Israel to fight against so numerous an enemy (ver. 12). In his manner of addressing Jahve, " God of our fathers," there is contained a reason why God should protect His people in their present distress. Upon Him, who had given the land to the fathers for a possession, it was incumbent to maintain the children in the enjoyment of it, if they had not forfeited it by their sins. Now Jahve as a covenant God was bound to do this, and also as God and ruler of heaven and earth He had the requisite power and might; cf. Ps. cxv. 3. ^rfWr ^V ptf, there is none with Thee who could set himself, i.e. could withstand Thee: cf. the similar phrase, xiv. 10; and for the thought, see 1 Chron. xxix. 12. — On ver. la, cf. Josh, xxiii. 9, xxiv. 12, Ex. xxiii. 20 ff., etc.; on lb, cf. Gen. xiii. 15 f., xv. 18, etc.; on ^nx, Isa. xli. 8. — Ver. 8. In this land they dwelt, and built Thee therein a sanctuary for Thy name; cf. vi. 5, 8. "^nPj saying, i.e. at the consecration of this house, having expressed the confident hope contained in the following words (ver. 9). In this verse, the cases enumerated in Solomon's dedicatory prayer, in which supplication is made that God would hear in the temple, are briefly summed up. By referring to that prayer, Jehoshaphat presupposes that Jahve had promised that He would answer prayer offered there, since He had filled the temple with His glory; see vii. 1-3. The name ttiSlj?, which occurs only here, between "ll?. and inn, denotes in this connection a punitive judgment. — Ver. 10. nOT, and now, the contrary of this has occurred. Peoples into whose midst (Dni K)2?... 1BW) Thou didst not allow Israel to come, i.e. into whose land Thou didst not allow Israel to enter when they came out of the land of Egypt, for they (the Israelites under Moses) turned from them and destroyed them not (cf. as to the fact, Num. xx. 14 ff.; Deut. ii. 4, ix. 19); behold, these peoples recompense us by coming to cast us out of our possession which Thou hast given us (^v"Pn, to give as a possession, as in Judg. xi. 24). There follows hereupon in ver. 12 the prayer: " Our God, wilt Thou not judge," i.e. do right upon them, for we have not strength before (to withstand) this multitude 1 We know not what to do, sc. against so many enemies; but our eyes are turned to Thee, i.e. to Thee we look for help; cf. Ps. exxiii. 2, cxli. 8. — Ver. 13. Thus all Judah, with their king, stood praying before the Lord. They had, moreover, brought with them their little ones, their wives, and their sons, to pray for deliverance for them from the enemy; cf. Judith iv. 9.

Vers. 14-19. The Lord's answer by the prophet Jahaziel. — Ver. 14. In the midst of the assembly the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel, a Levite of the sons of Asaph, and promised miraculous assistance to king and people. Jahaziel's descent is traced back for five generations to the Levite Mattaniah of the sons of Asaph. This Mattaniah is not the same person as the Mattaniah in 1 Chron. xxv. 4, 16, who lived in David's time, for he belonged to the sons of Heman; but perhaps (as Movers conjectures, S. 112) he is identical with the Asaphite Nethaniah, 1 Chron. xxv. 2, 12, since D and 3 might easily be confounded. — Ver. 15. Jahaziel announced to the king and people that they need not fear before the great multitude of their foes; " for the war is not yours, but Jahve's," i.e. you have not to make war upon them, for the Lord will do it; cf. 1 Sam. xvii. 47. — Ver. 16. " To-morrow go ye down against them: behold, they come up by the height Hazziz; and ye will find them at the end of the valley, before the desert Jeruel." The wilderness Jeruel was, without doubt, the name of a part of the great stretch of flat country, bounded on the south by the Wady el Ghar, and extending from the Dead Sea to the neighbourhood of Tekoa, which is now called el Hasasah, after a wady on its northern side. The whole country along the west side of the Dead Sea, " where it does not consist of mountain ridges or deep valleys, is a high table-land, sloping gradually towards the east, wholly waste, merely covered here and there with a few bushes, and without the slightest trace of having ever been cultivated" (Robinson's Pal. sub voce). The name p^ ^.V®, ascent or height of Hazziz, has perhaps remained attached to the Wadv el Hasasah. LXX. have rendered P2?n by 'Aaaei<;; Josephus (Antt. ix. 1. 2) has avaftdcrecos XeyofAevr]? efo^/)?, in accordance with which Robinson (loc. cit.) takes the way " upwards from Ziz " to be the pass which at present leads from Ain Jidy to the table-land. Yet it is described by him as a " fearful pass," * and it can hardly be thought of here, even if the enemy, like the Bedouins now when on their forays, may be

1 lie remarks: "The path winds up in zig-zags, often at the steepest gradient which horses could ascend, and runs partly along projecting Avails of rock on the perpendicular face of the cliff, and then down the heaps of debris, which are almost as steep. When one looks back at this part from below, it seems quite impossible that there could be any pathway; but by skilful windings the path has been carried down without any unconquerable difficulties, so that even loaded camels often go up and down."

supposed to have marched along the shore of the sea, and ascended to the table-land only at Engedi; for the Israelites did not meet the enemy in this ascent, but above upon the table-land. Josephus' translation of T^l1 by e^o^v is also very questionable, for it is not necessary that the n should be the article (Ew. Gesch. iii. S. 475, der 2 Aufl.). — Ver. 17. Ye have not to fight therein (OND); only come hither, stand and see the help of the Lord (who is) with you. You need do nothing more, and therefore need not fear. — Ver. 18. For this comforting assurance the king and people thanked the Lord, falling down in worship before Him, whereupon the Levites stood up to praise God with a loud voice. Levites " of the sons of Kohath, yea, of the Korahites," for they were descended from Kohath (1 Chron. vi. 22).

Vers. 20-30. The fulfilment of the divine promise. — Ver. 20. On the next morning the assembled men of Judah marched, in accordance with the words of the prophet, to the wilderness of Tekoa. As they marched forth, Jehoshaphat stood, probably in the gate of Jerusalem, where those about to march forth were assembled, and called upon them to trust firmly in the Lord and His prophets (^»Kn and ^xn, as in Isa. vii. 9). After he had thus counselled the people (7K YV)\ shown himself a counsellor; cf. 2 Kings vi. 8), he ordered them to march, not for battle, but to assure themselves of the wonderful help of the Lord. He placed singers of the Lord (^ before mrv as a periphrasis for the genitive), singing praise in holy ornaments, in the marching forth before the army, and saying; i.e. he commanded the Levitic singers to march out before the army, singing and playing in holy ornaments ('P'^IIl1^, clad in holy ornaments, =flV{n3 in 1 Chron. xvi. 29; cf. Ew. § 217, a), to praise the Lord for the help He had vouchsafed. — Ver. 22. And at the time when they (having come into the neighbourhood of the hostile camp) began w7ith singing and praising, Jahve directed liers in wait against the sons of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, who were come against Judah, and they were smitten. M"]ND denotes liers in wait, men hidden in ambush and lying in wait (Judg. ix. 25). Who are here meant cannot be ascertained with certainty. Some of the older commentators, Ew. and Berth., think it refers to powrers, angels sent by God, who are called insidiatores, because of the work they had to do in the army of the hostile peoples. But the passages where the interposition of heavenly powers is spoken of are different (cf. 2 Kings vi. 17, xix. 35), and it is not probable that heavenly powers would be called M"1SJD. Most probably earthly liers in wait are meant, who unexpectedly rushed forth from their ambush upon the hostile army, and raised a panic terror among them; so that, as is narrated in ver. 23 f., the Ammonites and Moabites first turned their weapons against the inhabitants of Mount Seir, and after they had exterminated them, began to exterminate each other. But the ambush cannot have been composed of men of Judah, because they were, according to vers. 15 and 17, not to fight, but only to behold the deliverance wrought by the Lord. Probably it was liers in wait of the Seirites, greedy of spoil, who from an ambush made an attack upon the Ammonites and Moabites, and by the divine leading put the attacked in such fear and confusion, that they turned furiously upon the inhabitants of Mount Seir, who marched with them, and then fell to fighting with each other; just as, in Judg. vii. 22 f., the Midianites were, under divine influence, so terrified by the unexpected attack of the small band led by Gideon, that they turned their swords against and mutually destroyed each other. '& ^Wli Dnfe:n? and when they had come to an end (were finished) among the inhabitants of Seir, when they had massacred these, they helped the one against the other to destruction (JVrr^'D is a substantive, as xxii. 4, Ezek. v. 16, etc.). — Ver. 24. Now, when Judah came to the height in the wilderness (n^¥P, specula, watch-tower, here a height in the wilderness of Tekoa, whence one might look out over the wilderness Jeruel, ver. 1G), and turned, or was about to turn, against the multitude of the enemy (l^nn referring back to ver. 12), behold, they saw "corpses lying upon the earth, and none had escaped," i.e. they saw corpses in such multitude lying there, that to all appearance none had escaped. — Ver. 25. So Jehoshaphat, with his people, came (as Jahaziel had announced, not to fight, but only to make booty) and found among them (DR3, among or by the fallen) in abundance both wealth and corpses and precious vessels. The mention of B^S as part of the booty, between tftpT) and the precious vessels, is somewhat surprising. Some Codd. (4 Kennic. and 3 de Rossi) and various ancient editions (Complut., the Brixenian used by Luther, the Bomberg. of date 1518 and 21, and the Minister) have, instead of it, D^J3; but it is very questionable if the LXX. and Vulg. have it (cf. de Rossi varice lectt. ad h. L). B^IJS, garments, along with tsnari, moveable property (cattle, tents, etc.), seems to suit better, and is therefore held byDathe and Berth, to be the correct and original reading. Yet the proofs of this are not decisive, for D'nja is much better attested, and we need not necessarily take B*D"j to mean living and dead cattle; but just as WET\ denotes property of any kind, which, among nomadic tribes, consists principally in cattle, we may also take B^lja in the signification of slain men and beasts — the clothes of the men and the accoutrements and ornaments of the beasts (cf. Judg. viii. 26) being a by no means worthless booty. Garments as such are not elsewhere met with in enumerations of things taken as booty, in Judg. viii. 26 only the purple robes of the Midianite princes being spoken of; and to the remark that the before-mentioned B'HAa has given rise to the changing of EHJ2 m^o ^IjSj we may oppose the equally well-supported conjecture, that the apparently unsuitable meaning of the word D'HJQ may have given rise to the alteration of it into &HJ2. fii""!ftn v3 are probably in the main gold and silver ornaments, such as are enumerated in Judg. viii. 25 f. And they spoiled for themselves NiTD P&6, " there wras not carrying," i.e. in such abundance that it could not be carried away, removed, and plundered in three days, because the booty was so great. The unusually large quantity of booty is accounted for by the fact that these peoples had gone forth with all their property to drive the Israelites out of their inheritance, and to take possession of their land for themselves; so that this invasion of Judah was a kind of migration of the peoples, such as those which, at a later time, have been repeated on a gigantic scale, and have poured forth from Central Asia over the whole of Europe. In this, the purpose of the hostile hordes, we must seek the reason for their destruction by a miracle wrought of God. Because they intended to drive the people of Israel out of the land given them by God, and to destroy them, the Lord was compelled to come to the help of His people, and to destroy their enemies. — Ver. 26. On the fourth day the men of Judah gathered themselves together, to give thanks to God the Lord for this blessing, in a valley which thence received the name rOTS pDy (valley of blessing), and which cannot have been far from the battle-field. Thence they joyfully returned, with Jehoshaphat at their head, to Jerusalem, and went up, the Levites and priests performing solemn music, to the house of God, to render further thanks to the Lord for His wondrous help (ver. 27 f.). The ancient name nana still exists in the Wady Boreikut, to the west of Tckoa, near the road which leads from Hebron to Jerusalem. " A wide, open valley, and upon its west side, on a small rising ground, are the ruins of Bereikut, which cover from three to four acres " (Robinson's New Biblical Researches, and Phys. Geogr. S. 106; cf. v. de Velde, Memoir, p. 292). Jerome makes mention of the place in Vita Paulo?, where he narrates that Paula, standing in supercilio Caphar baruca, looked out thence upon the wide desert, and the former land of Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Reland, Pal. illustr. pp. 356 and 685). There is no ground, on the other hand, for the identification of the valley of blessing with the upper part of the valley of Kidron, which, according to Joel iv. 2, 12, received the name of Valley of Jehoshaphat (see on Joel iv. 2).— On ver. 21b, cf. Ezra vi. 22, Neh. xii. 43.— Ver. 29. The fame of this victory of the Lord over the enemies of Israel caused the terror of God to be spread abroad over all the kingdoms of the surrounding lands, in consequence of which the kingdom of Judah had rest (cf. xvii. 10). On the last clause of ver. 30, cf. xv. 15. This wonderful act of the Lord is made the subject of praise to God in the Korahite Psalms, xlvi., xlvii., and xlviii., and perhaps also in Ps. lxxxiii., composed by an Asaphite, perhaps Jahaziel (see Del. Introduction to these Psalms).

Vers. 31-37. Concluding notes on Jehoshaphat's reign, which are found also in 1 Kings xxii. 41-51, where they, supplemented by some notes (vers. 45, 48, and 49) which are wanting in the Chronicle, form the whole account of his reign. In the statements as to Jehoshaphat's age at his accession, and the length and character of his reign, both accounts agree, except that the author of the Chronicle has, instead of the stereotyped formula, u and the people still sacrificed and offered incense upon the high places," a remark more significant of the state of affairs: " and the people had not yet determinedly turned their heart to the God of their fathers" (ver. 33). The notice that Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel (Kings, ver. 45) is not found in the Chronicle, because that would, as a matter of course, follow from Jehoshaphat's having joined affinity with the royal house of Ahab, and had been already sufficiently attested by the narrative in chap, xviii., and is so still further by the undertaking spoken of in ver. 35 ff. For the same reason, the clause introduced in 1 Kincrs xxii. 46 about the valiant acts and the wars of Jehoshaphat is omitted in the Chronicle, as these acts have been specially narrated here. As to Jehu's speeches, which were put into the book of Kings, see the Introduction, p. 34. Further, the remark on the driving out of the remaining Sodomites (^*?P) from the land, 1 Kings xxii. 47, which refers back to 1 Kings xv. 12, is wanting here, because this speciality is not mentioned in the case of Asa. Finally, the remark that Edom had no king, but only a viceroy or deputy, serves in 1 Kings xxii. 48 only as an introduction to the succeeding account of Jehoshaphat's attempt to open up anew the sea traffic with Ophir. But on that subject the author of the Chronicle only recounts in vers. 35-37 that Jehoshaphat allied himself with the godless Ahaziah the king of Israel to build in Ezion-gaber ships to go to Tarshish, was censured for it by the prophet Eliezer, who announced to him that Jahve would destroy his work, and that thereupon the ships were broken, doubtless by a storm, and so could not go upon the voyage. B"*2W does not definitely fix the time (cf. xx. 1), but only states that the alliance with Ahaziah took place after the victory over the Ammonites and Moabites. Ahaziah ascended the throne in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat, and reigned scarcely two years, and the enterprise under discussion falls in that period, ^nnx is an Aramaic form for "^nnn. The last clause of ver. 38, u he did wickedly," Bertheau refers to Jehoshaphat: he did wrong; because the context shows that these words are intended to contain a censure on Jehoshaphat for his connection with the king of the northern kingdom. But this remark, though substantially correct, by no means proves that fcttn refers to Jehoshaphat. The words contain a censure on Jehoshaphat on account of his alliance with Ahaziah, even if they describe Ahaziah's conduct. We must, with the older commentators, take the words to refer to Ahaziah, for ^KHPI is much too strong a word for Jehoshaphat's fault in the matter. The author of the Chronicle does indeed use the word JTBhn of Jehoshaphat's grandson Ahaziah, xxii. 3, in the clause, " his mother, a daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, was for SPKhri his counsellor," but only that he may characterize the acts of the Ahabic house. Jehoshaphat allied himself with the wicked Ahaziah to build ships B^Bhfl HOT, to go to Tarshish; and they built ships at Ezion-gaber, i.e. on the Ived Sea. Instead of this, we have in 1 Kings xxii. 49: Jehoshaphat built Tarshish ships to go to Ophir for gold. Hence it is manifest that in both passages the same undertaking is spoken of, and the expression

" Tarshish ships " is paraphrased in the Chronicle by " ships to go to Tarshish." This periphrasis is, however, a mistake; for Tarshish ships are merely ships which, like those going to Tarshish, were built for long sea voyages, for Jehoshaphat merely desired to renew the voyages to Ophir. With the exception of this erroneous interpretation of the words, Tarshish ships, the two narratives agree, if we only keep in mind the fact that both are incomplete extracts from a more detailed account of this enterprise. The Chronicle supplies us with an explanatory commentary on the short account in 1 Kings xxii. 49, both in the statement that Jehoshaphat allied himself with Ahaziah of Israel for the preparation of the ships, and also in communicating the word of the prophet Eliezer as to the enterprise, which makes clear to us the reason for the destruction of the ships; while in 1 Kings xxii. 49 merely the fact of their destruction is recorded. Of the prophet Eliezer nothing further is known than the saying here communicated. His father's name, Dodavahu, is analogous in form to Hodavya, Joshavya (see on 1 Chron. iii. 24), so that there is no good ground to alter it into tfljlfa, friend of Jahve, after the Awhla of the LXX. As to Mareshah, see on xi. 8. The perfect p_S is prophetic: Jahve will rend thy work asunder. The words which follow record the fulfilment. "TO as in xiii. 20, xiv. 10. With this the chronicler's account of this enterprise concludes; while in 1 Kings xxii. 50 it is further stated that, after the destruction of the ships first built, Ahaziah called upon Jehoshaphat still to undertake the Ophir voyage in common with him, and to build new ships for the purpose, but Jehoshaphat would not. The ground of his refusal may easily be gathered from ver. 37 of the Chronicle.

The account of the death and burial of Jehoshaphat is carried over to chap, xxi., because Joram's first act after Jehoshaphat's death, ver. 2 ff., stands in essential connection with that event, since Joram began his reign with the murder of all his brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat (vers. 2-4). The further account of Joram (vers. 5-10) agrees almost verbally with the account in 2 Kings viii. 17-22; then in vers. 12-19 there follows further information as to the divine chastisements inflicted upon Joram for his crime, which is not found in 2 Kings; and in ver. 20 we have remarks on his end, which correspond to the statements in 2 Kings viii. 24.

Vers. 1-4. Jehoshaphat s death, and the slaughter of his sons by Joram. — Vers. 2, 3. Joram had six brothers, whom their father had plentifully supplied with means of subsistence — presents in silver, gold, and precious things — " in the fenced cities of Judah; " i.e. he had made them, as Kehoboam also had made his sons, commandants of fortresses, with ample revenues; but the kingdom he gave to Joram as the first-born. Anions the six names two Azariahs occur, — the one written Azarjah, the other Azarjahu. Jehoshaphat is called king of Israel instead of king of Judah, because he as king walked in the footsteps of Israel, Jacob the wrestler with God, and was a true king of God's people. — Ver. 4. Now when Joram ascended (raised himself to) the throne of his father, and attained to power (PjtnJT as in i. 1), he slew all his brethren with the sword, and also some of the princes of Israel, i.e. the tribal princes of his kingdom. It could hardly be from avarice that he slew his brothers, merely to get possession of their property; probably it was because they did not sympathize with the political course which he was entering upon, and disapproved of the idolatrous conduct of Joram and his wife Athaliah. This may be gathered from the fact that in ver. 13 they are called better than Joram. The princes probably drew down upon themselves the wrath of Joram, or of his heathen consort, by disapproving of the slaughter of the royal princes, or by giving other signs of discontent writh the spirit of their reign.

Vers. 5—10. Duration and spirit of Joranis reign. — These verses agree with 2 Kings viii. 17—22, with the exception of some immaterial divergences, and have been commented upon in the remarks on that passage. — In ver. 7 the thought is somewhat otherwise expressed than in ver. 19 (Kings): " Jahve would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that He had made with David;" instead of, "He would not destroy Judah because of David His servant, as He had said." Instead of T\TO V3nb "TO 6 we have in the Chronicle Wafc TJ \h nrb. to give him a lamp, and that in respect of his sons, i being inserted before Vw to bring the idea more prominently forward. In regard to Vfo Dy, ver. 9, instead of rrw Kings ver. 21, see on 2 Kings loc. cit.

At the end of ver. 9 the words, u and the people fled to their tents" (ver. 21, Kings), whereby the notice of Joram' s attempt to bring Edom again under his sway, which is in itself obscure enough, becomes yet more obscure. — Yer. 10 f. The chronicler concludes the account of the revolt of Edom and of the city of Libnah against Judah's dominion with the reflection: a For he (Joram) had forsaken Jahve the God of the fathers," and consequently had brought this revolt upon himself, the Lord punishing him thereby for his sin. "Yea, even high places did he make." The E3 placed at the beginning may be connected with nto3 (cf. Isa. xxx. 33), while the subject is emphasized by tf}n: The same who had forsaken the God of the fathers, made also high places, which Asa and Jehoshaphat had removed, xiv. 2, 4, xvii. 6. " And he caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication," i.e. seduced them into the idolatrous worship of Baal. That the Hiph. JH is to be understood of the spiritual whoredom of Baal-worship we learn from ver. 13: "as the house of Ahab caused to commit fornication." fW? " and misled Judah," i.e. drew them away by violence from the right way. rpp is to be interpreted in accordance with Deut. xiii. 6, 11. Vers. 12-19. The prophet Elijah's letter against Joram, and the infliction of the punishments as announced. — Ver. 12. There came to him a writing from the prophet Elijah to this effect: 11 Thus saith Jahve, the God of thy father David, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat,... but hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel,... and also hast slain thy brethren, the house of thy father, who were better than thyself; behold, Jahve will send a great plague upon thy people, and upon thy sons, and thy wives, and upon all thy goods; and thou shalt have great sickness, by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day." 3fi?*?, writing, is a written prophetic threatening, in which his sins arc pointed out to Joram, and the divine punishment for them announced. In regard to this statement, we need not be surprised that nothing is elsewhere told us of any written prophecies of Elijah; for we have no circumstantial accounts of his prophetic activity, by which we might estimate the circumstances which may have induced him in this particular instance to commit his orophecy to writing. But, on the other hand, it is very questionible if Elijah was still alive in the reign of Joram of Judah. Mis translation to heaven is narrated in 2 Kings ii., between the eign of Ahaziah and Joram of Israel, but the year of the event is nowhere stated in Scripture. In the Jewish Chronicle Seder olam, chap. xvii. 45, it is indeed placed in the second year of Ahaziah of Israel; but this statement is not founded upon historical tradition, but is a mere deduction from the fact that his translation is narrated in 2 Kings ii. immediately after Ahaziah's death; and the last act of Elijah of which we have any record (2 Kings i.) falls in the second year of that king. Lightfoot, indeed (Opp. i. p. 85), Ramb., and Dereser have concluded from 2 Kings iii. 11 that Elijah was taken away from the earth in the reign of Jehoshaphat, because according to that passage, in the campaign against the Moabites, undertaken in company with Joram of Israel, Jehoshaphat inquired for a prophet, and received the answer that Elisha was there, who had poured water upon the hands of Elijah. But the only conclusion to be drawn from that is, that in the camp, or near it, was Elisha, Elijah's servant, not that Elijah was no longer upon earth. The perfect PVJ. "N?K seems indeed to imply this; but it is questionable if we may so press the perfect, i.e. whether the speaker made use of it, or whether it was employed only by the later historian. The words are merely a periphrasis to express the relationship of master and servant in which Elijah stood to Elisha, and tell us only that the latter was Elijah's attendant. But Elisha had entered upon this relationship to Elijah long before Elijah's departure from the earth (1 Kings xix. 19 ff.). Elijah may therefore have still been alive under Joram of Judah; and Berth, accordingly thinks it " antecedently probable that he spoke of Joram's sins, and threatened him with punishment. But the letter," so he further says, u is couched in quite general terms, and gives, moreover, merely a prophetic explanation of the misfortunes with which Joram was visited;" whence we may conclude that in its present form it is the work of a historian living at a later time, who describes the relation of Elijah to Joram in few words, and according to his conception of it as a whole. This judgment rests on dogmatic grounds, and flows from a principle which refuses to recognise any supernatural prediction in the prophetic utterances. The contents of the letter can be regarded as a prophetic exposition of the misfortunes which broke in, as it were, upon Joram, only by those who deny a jjrioii that there is any special prediction in the speeches of the prophets, and hold all prophecies which contain such to be vaticinia post cvcntum. Somewhat more weighty is the objection raised against the view that Elijah was still upon earth, to the effect that the divine threatenings would make a much deeper impression upon Joram by the very fact that the letter came from a prophet who was no longer in life, and would thus more easily bring him to the knowledge that the Lord is the living God, who had in His hand his breath and all his ways, and who knew all his acts. Thus the writing would smite the conscience of Joram like a voice from the other world (Diichsel). But this whole remark is founded only upon subjective conjectures and presumptions, for which actual analogies are wanting. For the same reason we cannot regard the remark of Menken as very much to the point, when he says: " If a man like Elias were to speak again upon earth, after he had been taken from it, he must do it from the clouds: this would harmonize with the whole splendour of his course in life; and, in my opinion, that is what actually occurred." For although we do not venture " to mark the limits to which the power and sphere of activity of the perfected saints is extended," yet we are not only justified, but also bound in duty, to judge of those facts of revelation which are susceptible of different interpretations, according to the analogy of the whole Scripture. But the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments know nothing of any communications by writing between the perfected saints in heaven and men; indeed, they rather teach the contrary in the parable of the rich man 1 (Luke xvi. 31). There are consequently no sufficient grounds for believing that the glorified Elijah either sent a letter to Joram from heaven by an angel, or commissioned any living person to write the letter. The statement of the narrative, u there came to him a writing from Elijah the prophet," cannot well be understood to mean anything else than that Elijah wrote the threatening prophecy which follows; but we have no certain proof that Elijah was then no longer alive, but had been already received into heaven. The time of his translation cannot be exactly fixed. lie was still alive in the second year of Ahaziah of Israel; for he an-

1 " Neque enim" says Ramb., " ulla rallone credibile est, Dcum in gratiam impii regis ejusmodi quid fecisse, cujus nullum alias exemption exstat; immo quod nee necessarium erat, quum plures aliie esscnt rationes, quibus Deus voluntatem suam ei manifestarc poterat; coll. Luc. xvi. 27, 29." And, still more conclusively, Calov. declares: "Nun cniri triumjihantium in ca:lis est erudire aut ad posniti ntiatn revocare mortaJes in terra. Ilabent Mosen et prophclas, si illos non audiant, neque si quis ex mortuis resurrexcrit, nedam si quis ex coclis literas perscripserit, credent Luc. xvi. 31."

nounced to this king upon his sick-bed that he would die of his fall (2 Kings i.). Most probably he was still alive also at the commencement of the reign of Joram of Israel, who ascended the throne twenty-three years after Ahab. Jehoshaphat died six or seven years later; and after his death, his successor Joram slew his brothers, the other sons of Jehoshaphat. Elijah may have lived to see the perpetration of this crime, and may consequently also have sent the threatening prophecy which is under discussion to Joram. As he first appeared under Ahab, on the above supposition, he would have filled the office of prophet for about thirty years; while his servant Elisha, whom he chose to be his successor as early as in the reign of Ahab (1 Kings xix. 16), died only under Joash of Israel (2 Kings xiii. 14 f.), who became king fifty-seven years after Ahab's death, and must consequently have discharged the prophetic functions for at least sixty years. But even if we suppose that Elijah had been taken away from the earth before Jehoshaphat's death, we may, with Buddseus, Ramb., and other commentators, accept this explanation: that the Lord had revealed to him Joram's wickedness before his translation, and had commissioned him to announce to Joram in writing the divine punishment which would follow, and to send this writing to him at the proper time. This would entirely harmonize with the mode of action of this great man of God. To him God had revealed the elevation of Jehu to the throne of Israel, and the extirpation of the house of Ahab by him, together with the accession of Hazael, and the great oppressions which he would inflict upon Israel, — all events which took place only after the death of Joram of Judah. Him, too, God had commissioned even under Ahab to anoint Jehu to be king over Israel (1 Kings xix. 16), which Elisha caused to be accomplished by a prophetic scholar fourteen years later (2 Kings ix. 1 ff.); and to him the Lord may also have revealed the iniquity of Joram, Jehoshaphat's successor, even as early as the second year of Ahaziah of Israel, when he announced to this king his death seven years before Jehoshaphat's death, and may have then commissioned him to announce the divine punishment of his sin. But if Elijah committed the anointing of both Ilazael and Jehu to his servant Elisha, why may he not also have committed to him the delivery of this threatening prophecy which he had drawn up in writing? Without bringing forward in support of this such hypotheses as that the contents of the letter would have all the greater effect, since it would seem as if the man of God were speaking to him from beyond the grave (O. v. Gerlach), we have yet a perfect right to suppose that a written word from the terrible man whom the Lord had accredited as His prophet by fire from heaven, in his struggle against Baal -worship under Ahab and Ahaziah, would be much better fitted to make an impression upon Joram and his consort Athaliah, who was walking in the footsteps of her mother Jezebel, than a word of Elisha, or any other prophet who was not endowed with the spirit and power of Elijah.

Elijah's writing pointed out to Joram two great transgressions: (1) his forsaking the Lord for the idolatrous worship of the house of Ahab, and also his seducing the people into this sin; and (2) the murder of his brothers. For the punishment of the first transgression he announced to him a great smiting which God would inflict upon his people, his family, and his property; for the second crime he foretold heavy bodily chastisements, by a dreadful disease which would terminate fatally. D^J?V CW, ver. 15, is accus. of duration: days on days, i.e. continuing for days added to days; cf. nj^ hv T\w) *SDj Isa. xxix. 1. WW Berth, takes to mean a period of a year, so that by this statement of time a period of two years is fixed for the duration of the disease before death. But the words in themselves cannot have this signification; it can only be a deduction from ver. 18. These two threats of punishment were fulfilled. The fulfilment of the first is recorded in ver. 16 f. God stirred up the spirit of the Philistines and the Arabians (nil DK Tj?n? as in 1 Chron. v. 26), so that they came up against Judah, and broke it, i.e. violently pressed into the land as conquerors (Vi??, to split, then to conquer cities by breaking through their walls; cf. 2 Kings xxv. 4, etc.), and carried away ail the goods that were found in the king's house, with the wives and sons of Joram, except Jehoahaz the youngest (xxii. 1). Movers (Chron. S. 122), Credner, Hitz., and others on Joel iv. 5, Berth., etc., conclude from this that these enemies captured Jerusalem and plundered it. But this can hardly be the case; for although Jerusalem belonged to Judah, and might be included in iTTin^ yet as a rule Jerusalem is specially named along with Judah as being the chief city; and neither the conquest of Judah, nor the carrying away of the goods from the king's house, and of the king's elder sons, with certainty involves the capture of the capital. The opinion that by the " substance which was found in the king's house " we are to understand the treasures of the royal palace, is certainly incorrect. 6W1 denotes property of any sort; and what the property of the king or of the king's house might include, we may gather from the catalogue of the Di"ttiK of David, in the country, in the cities, villages, and castles, 1 Ohron. xxvii. 25 ff., where they consist in vineyards, forests, and herds of cattle, and together with the ^H nn?X formed the property (B^ljJ) of King David. All this property the conquering Philistines and Arabians who had pressed into Judah might carry away without having captured Jerusalem. But Tjp^Dri JV3 denotes here, not the royal palace, but the king's family; for ^©n JVnp N^MH does not denote what was found in the palace, but what of the possessions of the king's house they found. KVD3 with? is not synonymous with 3 N-f*?J, but denotes to be attained, possessed by; cf. Josh. xvii. 16 and Deut. xxi. 17. Had Jerusalem been plundered, the treasures of the palace and of the temple would also have been mentioned: 2 Chron. xxv. 24, xii. 9; 2 Kings xiv. 13 f. and 1 Kings xiv. 26; cf. Kuhlmey, alttestl. Studien in der Luther. Ztschr. 1844, iii. S. 82 ff. Nor does the carrying away of the wives and children of King Joram presuppose the capture of Jerusalem, as we learn from the more exact account of the matter in xxii. 1. — Ver. 18 f. The second punishment fell upon the body and life of the king. The Lord smote him in his bowels to (with) disease, for which there was no healing, NS"]D fN? is in apposition to vfpj literally, " to not being healing." — Ver. 19. And it came to pass in days after days {i.e. when a number of days had passed), and that at the time (JTOi) of the expiration of the end in two days, then his bowels went out during his sickness, and he died in sore pains (DWnri, phenomena of disease, i.e. pains). The words WW &toj> fl?n n&tt? ny^ are generally translated as if 0*315* D'W were a mere periphrasis of the stat. constr. Vatabl. and Cler., for example, translate: et secundum tempus cgrediendi finis annorum due-rum, i.e. postquam advenit finis a. d.y or cum exacii essent duo anni; similarly Berth.: a at the time of the approach of the end of two times." But against this we have not only the circumstance that no satisfactory reason for the use of this periphrasis for the genitive can be perceived, and that no analogies can be found for the expression D*JB> D^W fipn, the end of two years, instead of DW D'Pjn f\>; but also the more decisive linguistic reason that PgH n&W cannot denote the approach of the end, but only the expiry, the running out of the end; and finally, that the supposition that tW here and in ver. 15 denotes a year is without foundation. Schmidt and Kamb. have already given a better explanation: quumque esset tempus, quo exiit finis s. quum exiret ac compleretur terminus ille, in epistola Elice v. 15 prcvjixus; but in this case also we should expect tPDjn Ti?, since DW E^? should point back to D^J s$ D^, and contain a more exact definition of the terms employed in ver. 15, which are not definite enough. We therefore take Pj?n n**-? by itself, and translate: At the time of the end, i.e. when the end, sc. of life or of the disease, had come about two days, i.e. about two days before the issue of the end of the disease, then the bowels went out of the body — they flowed out from the body as devoured by the disease. V9n Dy? in, during the sickness, consequently before the decease (cf. for D# in this signification, Ps. lxxii. 5, Dan. iii. 33). Trusen (Sitten, Gebr. und Kranhh. der alten Heartier, S. 212 f.) holds this disease to have been a violent dysentery (diarrhoea), u being an inflammation of the nervous tissue (Nervenhaut) of the whole great intestine, which causes the overlying mucous membrane to decay and peel off, which then falls out often in tube-shape, so that the intestines appear to fall from the body." His people did not make a burning for him like the burning of his fathers, cf. xvi. 14; that is, denied him the honours usual at burial, because of their discontent with his evil reign. — Ver. 20. The repetition of his age and the length of his reign (cf. ver. 6) is accounted for by the fact that the last section of this chapter is derived from a special source, wherein these notes likewise were contained. The peculiarity of the language and the want of the current expressions of our historian also favour the idea that some special authority has been used here. u And he departed, mourned by none." Luther erroneously translates, " and walked in a way which was not right " (und wandelt das nicld fein war), after the " ambulavit non recte " of the Vulg.; for H'npn denotes, not a good walk, but desiderium, rnfcn N?3? sine desiderio, i.e. a nemine dcsidcralus. "Hpn, to depart, i.e. die, as Gen. xv. 2. Moreover, though lie was buried in the city of David, yet he was not laid in the graves of the kings, by which act also a judgment was pronounced upon his reign; cf. xxiv. 25 and xxvi. 23.

Vers. 1-9. Ahazialis reign of a year, and Ids death. — The account of Ahaziah in 2 Kings viii. 26-29 agrees with our narrative, except that there the reflections of the chronicler on the spirit of his government are wanting; but, on the contrary, the account of his death is very brief in the Chronicle (vers. 6-9), while in 2 Kings ix. and x. the extirpation of the Ahabic house by Jehu, in the course of which Ahaziah was slain with his relatives, is narrated at length. — Ver. 1. Instead of the short stereotyped notice, " and Ahaziah his son was king in his stead," with which 2 Kings viii. 24 concludes the history of Joram, the Chronicle gives more exact information as to Ahaziah's accession: " The inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, his youngest son (who is called in xxi. 17 Jehoahaz), king in his stead; for all the elder (sons), the band which had come among the Arabs to the camp had slain." In ^vP! we have a hint that Ahaziah's succession was disputed or doubtful; for where the son follows the father on the throne without opposition, it is simply said in the Chronicle also, "and his son was king in his stead." But the only person who could contest the throne with Ahaziah, since all the other sons of Joram who would have had claims upon it were not then alive, was his mother Athaliah, who usurped the throne after his death. All the elder sons (D^b^on, the earlier born) were slain by the troop which had come among (with) the Arabians (see xxi. 16 f.) into the camp, — not of the Philistines (Cler.), but of the men of Judah; that is, they were slain by a reconnoitring party, which, in the invasion of Judah by the Philistines and Arabs, surprised the camp of the men of Judah, and slew the elder sons of Joram, who had marched to the war. Probably they did not cut them down on the spot, but (according to xxi. 17) took them prisoners and slew them afterwards.— Ver. 2. The number 42 is an orthographical error for 22 (n having been changed into d), 2 Kings viii. 26. As Joram was thirty-two years of age at his accession, and reigned eight years (xxi. 20 and 5), at his death his youngest son could not be older than twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, and even then Joram must have begotten him in his eighteenth or nineteenth year. It is quite consistent witli this that Joram had yet older sons; for in the East marriages are entered upon at a xcry early age, and the royal princes were wont to have several wives, or, besides their proper wives, concubines also. Certainly, had Ahaziah had forty-two older brothers, as Berth, and other critics conclude from 2 Kings x. 13 f., then he could not possibly have been begotten, or been born, in his father's eighteenth year. But that idea rests merely upon an erroneous interpretation of the passage quoted; see on ver. 8. Ahaziah's mother Athaliah is called the daughter, i.e. granddaughter, of Omri, as in 2 Kings viii. 26, because he was the founder of the idolatrous dynasty of the kingdom of the ten tribes. — Ver. 3. He also (like his father Joram, xxi. 6) walked in the ways of the house of Ahab. This statement is accounted for by the clause: for his mother (a daughter of Ahab and the godless Jezebel) was his counsellor to do evil, i.e. led him to give himself up to the idolatry of the house of Ahab. — Ver. 4. The further remark also, " he did that which was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, like the house of Ahab," is similarly explained; for they (the members of the house of Ahab related to him through his mother) were counsellors to him after the death of his father to his destruction, cf. xx. 23; while in 2 Kings viii. 27, the relationship alone is spoken of as the reason of his evil-doing. How far this counsel led to his destruction is narrated in ver. 5 and onwards, and the narrative is introduced by the words, u He walked also in their counsel;" whence it is clear beyond all doubt, that Ahaziah entered along with Joram, Ahab's son, upon the war which was to bring about the destruction of Ahab's house, and to cost him his life, on the advice of Ahab's relations. There is no doubt that Joram, Ahab's son, had called upon Ahaziah to take part in the war against the Syrians at Kamoth Gilead (see on xviii. 28), and that Athaliah with her party supported his proposal, so that Ahaziah complied. In the war the Aramaeans (Syrians) smote Joram; i.e., according to ver. 6, they wounded him (D^Kp^n is a contraction for D^Ensn, 2 Kings viii. 28). In consequence of this Joram returned to Jezreel, the summer residence of the Ahabic royal house (1 Kings xviii. 45), the present Zerin; see on Josh, xix. 18. D*313n '•S has no meaning, and is merely an error for D^ttn py 2 Kings viii. 29, which indeed is the reading of several Codd.: to let himself be cured of his strokes (wounds). ^")^? too, is an orthographical error for ^nfcfl: and Ahaziah went down to visit the wounded Joram, his brother-in-law. Whether he went from Jerusalem or from the loftily-situated Kamah cannot be with certainty determined, for we have no special account of the course of the war, and from 2 Kings ix. 14 f. we only learn that the Israelite army remained in Ramoth after the return of the wounded Joram. It is therefore probable that Ahaziah went direct from Ramoth to visit Joram, but it is not ascertained; for there is nothing opposed to the supposition that, after Joram had been wounded in the battle, and while the Israelite host remained to hold the city against the Syrian king Hazael, Ahaziah had returned to his capital, and thence went after some time to visit the wounded Joram in Jezreel.

Vers. 7-9. Without touching upon the conspiracy against Joram, narrated in 2 Kings ix., at the head of which was Jehu, the captain of the host, whom God caused to be anointed king over Israel by a scholar of the prophets deputed by Elisha, and whom he called upon to extirpate the idolatrous family of Ahab, since it did not belong to the plan of the Chronicle to narrate the history of Israel, our historian only briefly records the slaughter of Ahaziah and his brother's sons by Jehu as being the result of a divine dispensation. — Ver. 7. " And of God was (came) the destruction (nDUfi, a being trodden down, a formation which occurs here only) of Ahaziah, that he went to Joram;" i.e. under divine leading had Ahaziah come to Joram, there to find his death. 'M i&fall, And when he was come, he went out with Joram against Jehu (instead of WiT"?^ we have in 2 Kings ix. 21 the more distinct KVTJ rifcOi??, towards Jehu) the son of Nimshi, whom God had anointed to extirpate the house of Ahab (2 Kings ix. 1-10). — Ver. 8. When Jehu was executing judgment upon the house of Ahab (tOQ^J usually construed with rix? to be at law with any one, to administer justice; cf. Isa. lxvi. 16, Ezek. xxxviii. 22), he found the princes of Judah, and the sons of the brothers of Ahaziah, serving Ahaziah, and slew them. Dsm^D i.e. in the train of Kin^ Ahaziah as his servants. As to when and where Jehu met the brothers' sons of Ahaziah and slew them, we have no further statement, as the author of the Chronicle mentions that fact only as a proof of the divinely directed extirpation of all the members of the idolatrous royal house. In 2 Kings x. 12-14 wre read that Jehu, after he had extirpated the whole Israelite royal house — Joram and Jezebel, and the seventy sons of Ahab — went to Samaria, there to eradicate the Baal-worship, and upon his way thither met the brothers of Ahaziah the king of Judah, and caused them to be taken alive, and then slain, to the number of forty-two. These '•HK WWITWB, forty-two men, cannot have been actual brothers of Ahaziah, since all Ahaziah's brethren had, according to ver. 1 and xxi. 17, been slain in the reign of Joram, in the invasion of the Philistines and Arabians. They must be brothers only in the wider sense, i.e. cousins and nephews of Ahaziah, as Movers (S. 258) and Ewald recognise, along with the older commentators. The Chronicle, therefore, is quite correct in saying, u sons of the brethren of Ahaziah," and along with these princes of Judah, who, according to the context, can only be princes who held offices at court, especially such as were entrusted with the education and guardianship of the royal princes. Perhaps these are included in the number forty-two (Kings). But even if this be not the case, we need not suppose that there were forty-two brothers' sons, or nephews of Ahaziah, since S^nx includes cousins also, and in the text of the Chronicle no number is stated, although forty-two nephews would not be an unheard-of number; and we do not know how many elder brothers Ahaziah had. Certainly the nephews or brothers' sons of Ahaziah cannot have been very old, since Ahaziah's father Joram died at the age of forty, and Ahaziah, who became king in his twenty-second year, reigned only one year. But from the early development of posterity in southern lands, and the polygamy practised by the royal princes, Joram might easily have had in his fortieth year a considerable number of grandsons from five to eight years old, and boys of from six to nine years might quite well make a journey with their tutors to Jezreel to visit their relations. In this way the divergent statements as to the slaughter of the brothers and brothers' sons of Ahaziah, contained in 2 Kings ix. and in our 8th verse, may be reconciled, without our being compelled, as Berth, thinks we are, to suppose that there were two different traditions on this subject. — Ver. 9. And he (Jehu) sought Ahaziah, and they (Jehu's body-guard or his warriors) caught him while he was hiding in Samaria, and brought him to Jehu, and slew him. Then they (his servants, 2 Kings ix. 27) buried him, for they said: He is a son of Jehoshaphat, who sought Jahve with all his heart. We find more exact information as to Ahaziah's death in 2 Kings ix. 27 f., according to which Ahaziah, overtaken by Jehu near Jibleam in his flight before him, and smitten, i.e. wounded, fled to Megiddo, and there died, and was brought by his servants to Jerusalem, and buried with his fathers in the city of David. For the reconciliation of these statements, see on 2 Kings ix. 27 f. The circumstance that in our account first the slaughter of the brothers' sons, then that of Ahaziah is mentioned, while according to 2 Kings ix. and x. the slaughter of Ahaziah would seem to have preceded, does not make any essential difference; for the short account in the Chronicle is not arranged chronologically, but according to the subject, and the death of Ahaziah is mentioned last only in order that it might be connected with the further events which occurred in Judah. The last clause of ver. 9, " and there was not to the house of Ahab one who would have possessed power for the kingdom," i.e. there was no successor on the throne to whom the government might straightway be transferred, forms a transition to the succeeding account of Athaliah's usurpation.

Vers. 10-12. The six years' tyranny of Athaliah. — In regard to her, all that is stated is, that after Ahaziah's death she ascended the throne, and caused all the royal seed of the house of Judah, i.e. all the male members of the royal house, to be murdered. From this slaughter only Joash the son of Ahaziah, an infant a year old, was rescued, together with his nurse, by the princess Jehoshabeath, who was married to the high priest Jehoiada. He was hidden for six years, and during that time Athaliah reigned. The same narrative, for the most part in the same words, is found in 2 Kings xi. 1—3, and has been already commented upon there.

CHAP. XXIII. AND XXIV. — THE FALL OF ATHALIAH, AND THE CORONATION AND REIGN OF JOASH.

After Joash had been kept in hiding for six years, the high priest Jehoiada came to the resolution to make an end of the tyranny of Athaliah, and to raise the young prince to the throne. The carrying out of this resolution is narrated in chap, xxiii., and thereafter in chap. xxiv. All that is important as to the reign of Joash is communicated.

Chap, xxiii. Joash raised to the throney and Athaliah slain. — In 2 Kings xi. 4-20 we have another account of these events, in which the matter is in several points more briefly narrated, and apparently differently represented. According to both narratives, the thing was undertaken and carried out by the high priest Jehoiada; but according to 2 Kings xi., the high priest would appear to have mainly availed himself of the co-operation of the royal body-guard in the execution of his plan, while according to the Chronicle it is the Levites and the heads of the fathers'-houses who are made use of. Thereupon De Wette, Movers, Thenius, and Bertheau consequently maintain that the author of the Chronicle, proceeding on the view that the high priest, the chief of so many priests and Levites, would not have recourse to the assistance of the royal body-guard, has altered the statements in the second book of Kings accordingly, and wishes to represent the matter in a different way. But this assertion can be made with an appearance of truth only on the presupposition, already repeatedly shown to be erroneous, that the author of Jie Chronicle has made the account in 2 Kin^s xi. the basis of his narrative, and designedly altered it, and can scarcely be upheld even by the incorrect interpretation of various words. That 2 Kings xi. is not the source from which our account has been derived, nor the basis on which it is founded, is manifest from the very first verses of the chronicler's narrative, where the names of the five princes over hundreds, with whose co-operation Jehoiada elaborated his plan and carried it into execution, are individually enumerated; while in 2 Kings xi., where the preparations for the accomplishment of the work are very briefly treated of, they will be sought for in vain. But if, on the contrary, the two accounts be recognised to be extracts confining themselves to the main points, excerpted from a more detailed narrative of the event from different points of view, the discrepancies may be at once reconciled. Instead, of the short statement, 2 Kings xi. 4, that the high priest Jehoiada ordered the centurions of the royal body-guard to come to him in the temple (fcOJ... np), made a covenant with them, caused them to swear, and showed them the king's son, we read in the Chronicle (vers. 1-3), that the high priest Jehoiada took five centurions, whose names are stated with historical exactitude, into covenant with him, i.e. sent for them and made a covenant with them, and that these men then went throughout Judah, and summoned the Levites from all the cities of Judah, and the heads of the fathers'- houses of Israel, to Jerusalem; whereupon Jehoiada with the whole assembly made a covenant with the king in the house of God, and Jehoiada said to the people, " The king's son shall be king, as Jahve hath said of the sons of David." That this more expanded narrative can without difficulty be reconciled with the summary statement in 2 Kings xi. 4, is perfectly manifest. By various devices, however, Berth, tries to bring out some discrepancies. In the first place, in the words, " Jehoiada sent and brought the princes of hundreds" (Kings, ver. 4), he presses the JW, which is not found in the Chronicle, translates it by " he sent out," and interprets it with ver. 2 of the Chronicle; in the second, he takes ^nijrrps jn Ver. 3 of the Chronicle to mean u the whole congregation," whereas it denotes only the assembly of the men named in vers. 1 and 2; and, thirdly, he opposes the expression, "they made a covenant with the king" (ver. 3, Chron.), to the statement (ver. 2, Kings) that Jehoiada made a covenant to the princes, by making this latter statement mean that Jehoiada made a covenant with the princes, but not with the kincr, as if this covenant concerning the coronation of Joash as king might not be called, by a shorter mode of expression, a covenant with the king, especially when the declaration, " the son of the king shall reign," follows immediately. — Vers. 4-7. 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 2 Kings xi. 5-8, 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, wrhich was certainly in the neighbourhood of the main entrance; the second third was to stand at the gate Sur, probably a sidegate 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 1 Chron. ix. 19 f.), 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 ver. 6, were to observe the ordinance of Jahve (chap. xiii. 11), 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 (2 Kings xi. 7) has here become a m.T moPD." But in opposition to this, we have to remark that in 2 Kin£js xi. 5-8 it is 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 rriNftn ''"i^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 "no is identical with the gate ^D\l? — althoufidi 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, Sjtnsn floa (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 2 Kin^s xi. 4, — 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 (Kings, ver. 7), to be the temple building in which the young king was, and interpret "H^n 1V33 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 riDD. That riDD is not a nom. propr., but appellate from noj, to ward off, signifying warding off, is unanimously acknowledged by modern commentators; only Thenius would alter nDQ into nb^)7 " and shall ward off." Gesenius, on the contrary, in his Thesaurus, takes the word to be a substantive, cum tTtittfo per appositionem conjunctum, in the signification, the guard for warding off, and translates, et vos agetis custodiam templi ad depellendum sc. populum (to ward off). If this interpretation be correct, then these words also do not treat of a palace guard; and to take JV3H 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. But quite apart from the Chronicle, even the further account of the matter in 2 Kings xi. is unfavourable to the placing of guards in the royal palace. According to ver. 9, 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 (ver. 10), and the satellites stationed themselves in the court of the temple, and there the king was crowned. The unambiguous statement, ver. 9, 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 vers. 5 and 6 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 (Kings, ver. 19), 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, vers. 5 and 6 (Kings) 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 xi., that in vers. 5 and 6 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 ^tti] n"1? was the dwelling of the young king in the temple building, and not the palace. The expression 1V3 nnpK'D ")£tt> "^n, 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 sjfen WIS, in the short account of the distribution of the guards given by the chronicler (ver. 5), may be reconciled, if we translate it "at the house of the king," and call to mind that, according to 2 Kings xvi. 18 and 1 Kings x. 5, 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

And not less groundless is the assertion that the priest Jehoiada availed himself in the execution of his plan, according to 2 Kings xi., 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, a has made the body-guards of 2 Kings into Levites, in order to divert to the priesthood the honour which belonged to the Praetorians." The riton *y&7 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 2 Kings xi. 4. But the men who occupied the various posts are called in both texts na$n ^2 (Kings, ver. 5; Chron. ver. 4): in 2 Kings, vers. 7 and 9, the corresponding H3$n *Ktf is added; while in the Chronicle the ro^n ''XI are expressly called Levites, the words OWi D^n*37 being added. But we know from Luke i. 5, compared with 1 Chron. xxiv. (see above, p. 263), 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 xi. 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 Kings, ver. 11, the posts set are called ET>'7, 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 Dl|5n, 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 iiber die Chron. S. 362 ff., but this explanation of it has neither been regarded nor confuted by Thenius and Bertheau. Even the mention of *}3 and Esyj along with the captains and the whole people, in Kings, ver. 19, 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 0^*1 and of the people in the temple before Athaliah was slain (ver. 12 Chron. and ver. 13 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 vers. 5-7 (Kings) and vers. 4 and 5 (Chron.); 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 bodyguard is shown to be groundless and unjust, since the BH¥"i also are mentioned in the Chronicle.

According to this exposition, the true relation between the account in the Chronicle and that in the book of Kino's 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 (Kings, ver. 5) that all those relieved on the Sabbath were to keep guard of the house of Jahve, in reference to the king, in two divisions, is in Chronicles, ver. 5, thus generalized: u all the people were in the courts of the house of Jahve." DVn~p3 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 2 Kings xi. 13 and 19, 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 ver. 8 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 ver. 6 this further command of Jehoiada is communicated: Let no one enter the house of Jahve (nin1' rP3 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 wdiole 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. — Ver. 7. " And the Levites shall compass the king round about, each with his weapons in his hand." The Levites are the bodies of guards mentioned in vers. 4, 5. If we keep that in view, then the following words, " every one who cometh into the house shall be put to death," say the same as the words, a every one who cometh within the ranks" (Kings, ver. 8). A contradiction arises only if we misinterpret ^i?n, and understand it of the forming of a circle around the king; whereas ^pn, like BnQ|5n (Kings), is to be understood, according to the context, of the setting of the guards both at the temple gate and in the courts, so that whoever entered the court of the temple came within the ranks of the guards thus placed. — Vers. 8-10. The account of the occupation of the temple thus arranged agrees with vers. 9-11, Kings. Instead of rriMDH *ife> (Kings), in ver. 8 are very fittingly named " the Levites (as in ver. 5) and all Judah," viz. in its chiefs, since the high priest had assured himself of the support of the heads of the fathers'-houses of Israel (ver. 2). Further, to the statement that those who were departing from the service also took part in the affair, it is added, " for Jehoiada had not dismissed the courses." nipprran are the divisions which, according to the arrangement made by David (1 Chron. xxiv.-xxvi.), had charge of the temple service at that time. To the captains Jehoiada gave the spears and shields which had been presented to the temple by David as offerings, because they had come into the temple without weapons; see on 2 Kings xi. 10. ^V.% u and he caused the whole people to take position," is connected formally with |fi?l, ver. 9; while in Kings, ver. 11, we have simply ^EJW. — Ver. 11. The coronation of Joash, as in ver. 12 (Kings). The subject of ttPtf*! and UM is those present, while in N^i5! and K?5 (Kings), Jehoiada as leader of the whole is referred to. In the Chronicle, Jehoiada and his sons, i.e. the high priest with the priests assisting him, are expressly named as subject to EJvE? and ^nna^Jlj where in Kings also the plural is used; while, on the contrary, " the clapping of the hands" as a sign of joyful acclamation (Kings) is omitted, as being unimportant. — Vers. 12-15. Slaughter of Athaliah, as in 2 Kings xi. 13-16. In ver. 13 of the Chronicle, the statement that the assembled people played on instruments is expanded by the addition, " and singing with instruments of song, and proclaiming aloud to praise," i.e. and praising. #&% ver. 14, is an orthographical error for W) (Kings).

Vers. 16-21. The renewal of the covenant, extirpation of Baalworship, and the solemn entry of the king into his palace, as in 2 Kings xi. 17-20, and already commented on in that place. The remark as to the renewal of the covenant is in ver. 16 (Chron.) somewhat more brief than in Kings, ver. 17; and i^3, between himself, the same as between himself, the high priest, as representative of Jehovah. In Kings, ver. 17, the matter is more clearly expressed. In ver. 18 f., the statement, " the priest set overseers over the house of Jahve" (Kings), is expanded by the addition of the words, " by means of the Levitic priests whom David had distributed for the house of Jahve to offer sacrifices;... and he placed doorkeepers at the doors of the house of Jahve," etc. The meaning is: Jehoiada again introduced the old arrangement of the public worship in the temple as David had settled it, it having either fallen into decay or wholly ceased under the rule of the idolatrous Athaliah. As to the remainder, see on 2 Kin^s xi. 19 and 30.

Chap. xxiv. The reign of Joash; cf. 2 Kings xii. — In both accounts only two main events in Joash's reign of forty years are narrated at any length, — the repair of the temple, and the campaign of the Syrian king Hazael against Jerusalem. Besides this, at the beginning, we have a statement as to the duration and spirit of his reign; and in conclusion, the murder of Joash in consequence of a conspiracy is mentioned. Both accounts agree in all essential points, but are shown to be extracts containing the most important part of a more complete history of Joash, by the fact that, on the one hand, in 2 Kings xii. single circumstances are communicated in a more detailed and more exact form than that in which the Chronicle states them; while, on the other hand, the account of the Chronicle supplements the account in 2 Kings xii. in many respects. To these latter belong the account of the marriage of Joash, and his many children, the account of the death of Jehoiada at the age of 130 years, and his honourable burial with the kings, etc.; see on ver. 15.

Vers. 4—14. As to the repair of the temple, see the commentary on 2 Kings xii. 5-17, where both the formal divergences and the essential agreement of the two narratives are pointed out. — Yer. 11. ')y\ &y riyn W, translate: It came to pass at the time when they brought the chest to the guard of the king by the Levites, i.e. to the board of oversight appointed by the king from among the Levites. T\y stat. constr. before a sentence following. £3^3 Eiv does not denote every day, but every time when there was much money in the chest. — Ver. 13. »^^"1^ h?*?}, and there was a band laid upon the work, i.e. the restoration of the house of God was furthered; cf. for this symbolical expression, Neh. iv. 1, Jer. viii. 7. — Ver. 14. tra ^V.% therefrom (the king) caused to be made (prepared) vessels for the house of Jahve, (namely) vessels of the service, i.e., according to Num. iv. 12, in the holy place, and for the offering of burnt-offering, i.e. altar vessels, and (besides) bowls, and (other) vessels of gold and silver. The last clause of ver. 14 leads on to the following: " They (king and people) offered burnt-offering continually so long as Jehoiada lived."

Vers. 15-22. Jehoiada! s death: the fall of the people into idolatry: the protest of the prophet Zechariah against it, and the stoning of him. — This section is not found in 2 Kings xii., but is important for the understanding of the later history of Joash (ver. 23 ff.). With the death of the grey-haired high priest came a turning-point in the reign of Joash. Jehoiada had saved the life and throne of Joash, preserved to the kingdom the royal house of David, to which the promises belonged, and had put an end to the idolatry which had been transplanted into Judah by Joram's marriage into the royal house of Ahab, restoring the Jahve-worship. For this he was honoured at his death, his body being laid in the city of David among the kings: " For he had done good in Israel, and towards God and His house" (the temple). According to 2 Kings xii. 7, he still took an active

Joash, and according to ver. 14 he lived for some time after the completion of that work. But after his death the people soon forgot the benefits they owed him. — Ver. 17 f. The princes of and idols, and the king hearkened to them, did not venture to deny their request, ^f? WjfiB^ they bowed themselves before the king, i.e they besought him. Wliat they thus beseechingly requested is not stated, but may be gathered from what they did, according to ver. 18. They forsook Jahve the God of their fathers, etc. There came wrath upon Judah because of this

8, viz. the invasion of the land by Hazael, ver. 23 ff. On the this defection prophets whom the Lord sent did indeed lift up their testimony, but they would not hearken to them. Of these prophets, one, Zechariah the son of the high priest Jehoiada, is mentioned by name in ver. 20 ff., who, seized by the Spirit of the Lord, announced to the people divine punishment for their defection, and was thereupon, at the king's command, stoned in and the commentary on Judg. vi. 34. &0?£!?, above the people, viz., as we learn from ver. 21, in the inner, higher-lying court, so that he was above the people who were in the outer court. " Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, and (why) will ye not prosper % " Fidelity to the Lord is the condition of prosperity. If Israel forsake the Lord, the Lord will also forsake it; cf. xii. 5, xv. 2. — Ver. 21. And they (the princes and the people) conspired against him, and stoned him, at the command of the king, in the court of the temple. This tVnSt is the Zayaplas whose slaughter is mentioned by Christ in Matt, xxiii. 36 and Luke xi. 51 as the last prophet-murder narrated in the Old Testament, whose blood would come upon the people, although Matthew calls him vlbs Bapa%Lov. According to these passages, he was slain between the temple and the altar of burnt-offering, consequently in the most sacred part of the court of the priests. That the king, Joash, could give the command for this murder, shows how his compliance with the princes' demands (ver. 17) had made him the slave of sin. Probably the idolatrous princes accused the witness for God of being a seditious person and a rebel against the majesty of the crown, and thereby extorted from the weak king the command for his death. For it is not said that Joash himself worshipped the idols; and even in ver. 22 it is only the base ingratitude of which Joash had been guilty, in the slaughter of the son of his benefactor, which is adduced against him. But Zechariah at his death said, " May the Lord look upon it, and take vengeance " (^TJ, to seek or require a crime, i.e. punish it). This word became a prophecy, which soon began to be fulfilled, ver. 23 ff.

Vers. 23-26. The punishment comes upon them. Joash afflicted by the invasion of Judah by Hazael the Syrian; and his death in consequence of a conspiracy against him. — These two events are narrated in 2 Kings xii. 18-22 also, the progress of Hazael's invasion being more exactly traced; see the commentary on 2 Kings xii. 18 f. The author of the Chronicle brings forward only those parts of it which show how God punished Joash for his defection from Him. — Yer. 23. " At the revolution of a year," i.e. scarcely a year after the murder of the prophet Zechariah, a Syrian army invaded Judah and advanced upon Jerusalem; "and they destroyed all the princes of the people from among the people," i.e. they smote the army of Joash in a battle, in which the princes (the chief and leaders) were destroyed, i.e. partly slain, partly wounded. This punishment came upon the princes as the originators of the defection from the Lord, ver. 17. "And they sent all their booty to the king (Hazael) to Damascus." In this booty the treasures which Joash gave to the Syrians (2 Kings xii. 19) to buy their withdrawal are also included. In order to show that this invasion of the Syrians was a divine judgment, it is remarked in ver. 24 that the Syrians, with a small army, gained a victory over the very large army of Judah, and executed judgment upon Joash. D^DS^ njpy, as in Ex. xii. 12, Num. xxxiii. 4, frequently in Ezekiel, usually construed with 3, here with HK, analogous to the n« 3iD n^y? e.g. 1 Sam. xxiv. 19. These words refer to the wounding of Joash, and its results, ver. 25 f. In the war Joash was badly wounded; the Syrians on their withdrawal had left him behind in many wounds (D^pnD only met with here, synonymous with D^icnn, xxi. 19). Then his own servants, the court officials named in ver. 26, conspired against him, and smote him upon his bed. In 2 Kings xii. 21, the place where the king, lying sick upon his bed, was slain is stated. He met with his end thus, " because of the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest " which had been shed. The plural *J3 is perhaps only an orthographical error for 1?, occasioned by the preceding *tW (Berth.); but more probably it is, like TO3, xxviii. 3 and xxxiii. 6, a rhetorical plural, which says nothing as to the number, but only brings out that Joash had brought blood-guiltiness upon himself in respect of the children of his benefactor Jehoiada; see on xxviii. 3. Upon the murdered king, moreover, the honour of being buried in the graves of the kings was not bestowed; cf. xxi. 20. On the names of the two conspirators, ver. 26, see on 2 Kings xii. 21. In ver. 27 it is doubtful how yv\ is to be read. The Keri demands 3*V, which Berth, understands thus: And as regards his sons, may the utterance concerning him increase; which might signify, " May the wish of the dying Zechariah, ver. 22, be fulfilled on them in a still greater degree than on their father." But that is hardly the meaning of the Keri. The older theologians took 3"V| relatively: et guam creverit s. multiplicatum fuerit. Without doubt, the Keth. Zfrft or Tf[ is the correct reading. Kfe^n, too, is variously interpreted. Vulg., Luther, and others take it to be synonymous with HS^D, vers. 6, 9, and understand it of the money derived from Moses' tax; but to that Vjy is by no means suitable. Others (as Then.) think of the tribute laid upon him, 2 Kings xii. 19, but very arbitrarily. On the other hand, Clericus and others rightly understand it of prophetic threatenings against him, corresponding to the statement in ver. 19, that God sent prophets against him. As to the Midrash of the book of Kings, see the Introduction, p. 31 f.

Vers. 1-4. The statement as to the duration and spirit of the reign agrees with 2 Kings xiv. 1-6, except that in ver. 2 the estimation of the spirit of the reign according to the standard of David, "only not as his ancestor David, but altogether as his father Joash did," which we find in the book of Kings, is replaced by u only not with a perfect heart; " and the standing formula, " only the high places were not removed," etc., is omitted.

The succeeding section, vers. 5-16, enlarges upon Amaziah's preparations for war with Edom, which had revolted under Joram of Judah, 2 Kings viii. 22; upon the victory over the Edomites in the Valley of Salt, and on the results of this war; — on all which we have in 2 Kings xiv. 7 only this short note: " he smote Edom in the valley of Salt 10,000 men, and took Selah in war, and called its name Joktheel unto this day." But the more exact statements of the Chronicle as to the preparations and the results of this war and victory are important for Araaziah's later war with King Joash of Israel, which is narrated in veB. 17 ff. of our chapter, because in them lie the causes of that war, so fatal to Amaziah; so that the history of Amaziah is essentially supplemented by those statements of the Chronicle which are not found in 2 Kings.

Vers. 5-13. The preparations for the war against Edom, and the victory over the Edomites in the Valley of Salt. — Ver. 5. Amaziah assembled Judah, i.e. the men in his kingdom capable of bearing arms, and set them up (ordered them) according to the princes of thousands and hundreds, of all Judah and Benjamin, and passed them in review, i.e. caused a census to be taken of the men liable to military service from twenty years old and upward. They found 300,000 warriors " bearing spear and target" (cf. xiv. 7); a relatively small number, not merely in comparison with the numbers under Jehoshaphat, chap. xvii. 14 if., which are manifestly too large, but also with the numberings made by other kings, e.g. Asa, chap. xiv. 7. By Joram's unfortunate wars, chap. xxi. 17, those of Ahaziah, and especially by the defeat which Joash sustained from the Syrians, xxiv. 43, the number of men in Judah fit for war may have been very much reduced. Amaziah accordingly sought to strengthen his army against the Edomites, according to ver. 6, by having an auxiliary corps of 100,000 men from Israel (of the ten tribes) for 100 talents of silver, i.e. he took them into his pay. But a prophet advised him not to take the Israelitish host with him, because Jahve was not with Israel, viz. on account of their defection from Jahve by the introduction of the calf-worship. To Israel there is added, (with) all the sons of Ephraim, to guard against any misunderstanding. — Ver. 8. Amaziah is to go alone, and show himself valiant in war, and the Lord will help him to conquer. This is without doubt the thought in ver. 8, which, however, does not seem to be contained in the traditional Masoretic text. '5KH 1?*BOJ can hardly, after the preceding imperatives — do, be strong for battle — be otherwise translated than by, a and God will cause thee to stumble before the enemy." But this is quite unsuitable. Clericus, therefore, would take the words ironically: sin minus, tu vadito, etc.; i.e. if thou dost not follow my advice, and takest the Israelites with thee to the war, go, show thyself strong for the war, God will soon cause thee to stumble. But 2N ^ can never signify sin minus. Others, as Schmidt and Ramb., translate: Rather do thou go alone (without the Israelitish auxiliaries), and be valiant, alioquin enim, si illos tecum duxeris, corruere te faciei Deus; or, May God make thee fall before the enemy (De Wette). But the supplying of alioquin, which is only hidden by De Wette's translation, cannot be grammatically justified. This interpretation of the vT?! would be possible only if the negation *6 DK *3 stood in the preceding clause and v"1^ was joined to it by 1. The traditional text is clearly erroneous, and we must, with Ewald and Berth., supply a &6 or t6] before w^l: Go thou (alone), do, be valiant for battle, and God will not let thee come to ruin.1 After this we have very fittingly the reason assigned: a for with God there is power to help, and to cause to fall." — Ver. 9. Amaziah had regard to this exhortation of the prophet, and asked him only what he should do for the 100 talents of silver which he had paid the Israelite auxiliary corps; to which the prophet answered that Jahve could give him more than that sum. Amaziah thereupon dismissed the hired Ephraimite mercenaries. E.r I?.? he separated them (sc. from his army prepared for battle), viz. the band, that they might go to their place, i.e. might return home. The? before IViari is nota accus., and Wan? is in apposition to the suffix in D?*^!. But the auxiliaries thus dismissed returned home full of wrath against Judah, and afterwards fell upon the border cities of Judah, wasting and plundering (ver. 13). Their anger probably arose from the fact that by their dismissal the opportunity of making a rich booty in war was taken away. — Ver. 11 f. But Amaziah courageously led his people into the Valley of Salt, and smote the Edomites. pinnrij as in xv. 8, refers back to PTH, ver. 8: he showed himself strong, according to the word of the prophet. As to the Valley of Salt, see on 2 Sam.

1 Even the old translators eonld make nothing of the present text, and expressed the first clause of the verse as they thought best. LXX., on exu vTroKufiyg KccTa.oyJv(7ui h tovtoi;; Vulg., quod si putes in robore excrcilus bella consisiere; after -which Luth., u denn so du komest das du eine kiiiiheit beweisest im streit, -wird Gott dich fallen lassen fur dciucn Feinden."

viii. 13 and 1 Chron. xviii. 12. Besides the 10,000 slain in the battle, the men of Judah took 10,000 other Edomites prisoners, whom they cast from the top of a rock. This statement is wanting in 2 Kings xiv. 7, where, instead of it, the capture of the city Sela (Petra) is mentioned. The conjecture of Thenius, that this last statement of the Chronicle has been derived from a text of the Kings which had become illegible at this place, has already been rejected as untenable by Bertheau. Except the word Vpp, the two texts have nothing in common with each other; but it does suggest itself that V?sn Bfoh, the top of the rock (which has become famous by this event), is to be looked for in the neighbourhood of the city Selah, as the war was ended only by the capture of Selah. Besides the battle in the Valley of Salt there were still further battles; and in the numbers 10,000, manifestly the whole of the prisoners taken in the war are comprehended, who, as irreconcilable enemies of Judah, were not made slaves, but were slain by being thrown down from a perpendicular rock. — Ver. 13. The Ephraimite host dismissed by Amaziah fell plundering upon the cities of Judah, and smote of them (the inhabitants of these cities) 3000, and carried away great booty. They would seem to have made this devastating attack on their way home; but to this idea, which at first suggests itself, the more definite designation of the plundered cities, " from Samaria to Bethhoron," does not correspond, for these words can scarcely be otherwise understood than as denoting that Samaria was the starting-point of the foray, and not the limit up to which the plundered cities reached. For this reason Berth, thinks that this attack upon the northern cities of Judah was probably carried out only at a later period, when Amaziah and his army were in Edom. The latter is certainly the more probable supposition; but the course of events can hardly have been, that the Ephraimite auxiliary corps, after Amaziah had dismissed it, returned home to Samaria, and then later, when Amaziah had marched into the Valley of Salt, made this attack upon the cities of Judah, starting from Samaria. It is more probable that the dismissal of this auxiliary corps, which Amaziah had certainly obtained on hire from King Joash, happened after they had been gathered together in Samaria, and had advanced to the frontier of Judah. Then, roused to anger by their dismissal, they did not at once separate and return home; but, Amaziah having meanwhile taken the field against the Edomites with his army, made an attack upon the northern frontier cities of Judah as far as Bethhoron, plundering as tliey went, and only after this plundering did they return home. As to Bethhoron, now Beit-Ur, see on 1 Chron. vii. 24.