Vers. 14-16. Amazialis idolatry. — Ver. 14. On his return from smiting the Edomites, i.e. from the war in which he had smitten the Edomites, Amaziah brought the gods (images) of the sons of Seir (the inhabitants of Mount Seir) with him, and set them up as gods, giving them religious adoration.1 In order to turn him away from this sin, which would certainly kindle Jahve's wrath, a prophet said to Amaziah, " Why dost thou seek the gods of the people, who have not delivered their people out of your hand? " The prophet keeps in view the motive which had induced the king to set up and worship the Edomite idols, viz. the belief of all polytheists, that in order to make a people subject, one must seek to win over their gods (cf. on this belief the remarks on Num. xxii. 17), and exposes the folly of this belief by pointing out the impotence of the Edomite idols, which Amaziah himself had learnt to know. — Ver. 16. The king, however, in his blindness puts aside this earnest warning with proud words: " Have we made thee a counsellor of the king? Forbear, why should they smite thee? " I^JU is spoken collectively: We, the king, and the members of the council. And the prophet ceased, only answering the king thus: u I know that God hath determined to de'stroy thee, because thou hast done this (introduced Edomite idols), and hast not hearkened unto my counsel." The prophet calls his warning " counsel," referring to the king's word, that he was not appointed a counsellor to the king.
1 This statement, which is not found in 2 Kings xiv., may, in the opinion of Berth., perhaps not rest upon a definite tradition, but be merely the application of a principle which generally was found to act in the history of Israel to a particular case; i.e., it may be a clothing in historical garments of the principle that divine punishment came upon the idolatrous king, because it does not agree with the statement of 2 Kings xiv. 3. In that passage it is said of Amaziah: He did what was right in the eyes of Jahve, only not as David; altogether as his father Joash had done, did he. But Joash allowed his princes, after Jehoiada's death, to worship idols and Asheras, and had caused the prophet Zechariah, who reproved this idolatry, to be stoned. These are facts which, it is true, are narrated only in the Chronicle, but which are admitted by Bertheau himself to be historical. Now if Amaziah did altogether the same as his father Joash, who allowed idolatry, etc., it is hard indeed to see wherein the inconsistency of our account of Amaziah's idolatry with the character assigned to this king in 2 Kings xiv. 3 consists. Bertheau has omitted to give us any more definite information on this point.
Vers. 17-24. The war with Joash, king of Israel. — Instead of following the counsel of the prophet, Amaziah consulted (sc. with his public officials or courtiers), and challenged King Joash of Israel to war. The challenge, and the war which followed, are also narrated in 2 Kings xiv. 8-14 in agreement with our account, and have been already commented upon at that place, where we have also considered the occasion of this war, so fatal to Amaziah and the kingdom of Judah, an account of which has been handed down to us only in the supplementary narrative of the Chronicle. V in ver. 17 for n^p? come, as in Num. xxiii. 13 and Judg. xix. 13. — In ver. 20 the chronicler explains Amaziah's refusal to hear the warning of Joash before the war with him, by a reference to the divine determination: " For it (came) of God (that Amaziah still went to war), that He might deliver them (the men of Judah) into the hand, because they had sought the gods of Edom." T3 fru, to give into the- power of the enemy. — In ver. 23, '"^sn "ly^is a manifest error for n|an (Kings, ver. 13). Were njisn? the gate that turns itself, faces (in some direction), correct, the direction would have to be given towards which it turned, e.g. Ezek. viii. 3. — 'til an-jrra'i, Ver. 24, still depends upon b>Dn, ver. 23: and (took away) all the gold, etc. In Kings, ver. 14, nj?7l is supplied.
Vers. 25-28. The end of Amazialis reign; cf. 2 Kings xiv. 17-20. — Although conquered and taken prisoner by Joash, Amaziah did not lose the throne. For Joash, contented with the carrying away of the treasures of the temple and of the palace, and the taking of hostages, set him again at liberty, so that he continued to reign, and outlived Joash by about fifteen years. — Ver. 26. On the book of the kings of Judah and Israel, see the Introduction, p. 30 f. — Ver. 27. On the conspiracy against Amaziah, his death, etc., see the commentary on 2 Kings xiv. 17 f. »TOT "Vya, in the city of Judah, is surprising, since everywhere else " the city of David" is mentioned as the burial-place, and even in our passage all the ancient versions have " in the city of David." rVJJTV1 would therefore seem to be an orthographical error for TYJ, occasioned by the immediately following rniiT.
Vers. 1-5. The statements as to Uzziah's attainment of dominion, the building of the seaport town Elath on the lied
Sea, the length and character of his reign (vers. 1-4), agree entirely with 2 Kings xiv. 21, 22, and xv. 2, 3; see the commentary on these passages. Uzziah (^JW) is called in 1 Chron. iii. 12 and in 2 Kings (generally) Azariah (HJTffi); cf., on the use of the two names, the commentary on 2 Kings xiv. 21. — In ver. 5, instead of the standing formula, "only the high places were not removed," etc. (Kings), Uzziah' s attitude towards the Lord is more exactly defined thus: " He was seeking God in the days of Zechariah, who instructed him in the fear of God; and in the days when he sought Jahve, God gave him success." In W C>"H? the infinitive with? is subordinated to rpn? to express the duration of his seeking, for which the participle is elsewhere used. Nothing further is known of the Zechariah here mentioned: the commentators hold him to have been an important prophet; for had he been a priest, or the high priest, probably |H3n >yould have been used. The reading C'TWn tfina (Keth.) is surprising, 'n 'n patDH can only denote, who had insight into (or understanding for the) seeing of God; cf. Dan. i. 17. But Kimchi's idea, which other old commentators share, that this is a periphrasis to denote the prophetic endowment or activity of the man, is opposed by this, that u the seeing of God" which was granted to the elders of Israel at the making of the covenant, Ex. xxiv. 10, cannot be regarded as a thing within the sphere of human action or practice, while the prophetic beholding in vision is essentially different from the seeing of God, and is, moreover, never so called, nwo would therefore seem to be an orthographical error for flWTO, some MSS. having m&OU or DOTS (cf. de Eossi, varice lectt.); and the LXX., Syr., Targ., Arab., Raschi, Kimchi, and others giving the reading 'n ntTVa pitpn, who was a teacher (instructor) in the fear of God, in favour of which also Vitringa, proll. in Jes. p. 4, has decided.
Vers. 6-13. Wars, buildings, and army of Uzziah. — Of the successful undertakings by which Uzziah raised the kingdom of Judah to greater worldly power and prosperity, nothing is said in the book of Kings; but the fact itself is placed beyond all doubt, for it is confirmed by the portrayal of the might and greatness of Judah in the prophecies of Isaiah (chap, ii.-iv.), which date from the times of Uzziah and Jotham. — Ver. 6. After Uzziah had, in the very beginning of his reign, completed the subjection of the Edomites commenced by his father by the capture and fortification of the seaport Elath (ver. 2), he took the field to chastise the
Philistines and Arabians, who had under Joram made an inroad upon Judali and plundered Jerusalem (xxi. 16 f.). In the war against the Philistines he broke down the walls of Gath, Jabneh,
Ashdod, i.e. in the domain of Ashdod, and D^fiippBa, i.e. in other domains of the Philistines, whence we gather that he had wholly subdued Philistia. The city of Gath had been already taken from the Philistines by David; see 1 Chron. xviii. 1; and as to situation, see on xi. 8. Jabneh, here named for the first time, but probably occurring in Josh. xv. 11 under the name Jabneel,
Jebnah, four hours south of Joppa, and one and a half hours from the sea; see on Josh. xv. 11. Ashdod is now a village
God helped him, and against the Maanites, so that he overcame them and made them tributary. Gur-Baal occurs only here, and its position is unknown. According to the Targum, the city Gerar is supposed to be intended; LXX. translate eVl tt}?
Petra, in their thoughts. The D^JJO are the inhabitants of also paid him tribute (n™), and his name spread abroad even to the neighbourhood of Egypt; i.e., in this connection, not merely that his fame spread abroad to that distance, but that the report of his victorious power reached so far, he having extended his rule to near the frontiers of Egypt, for he was exceedingly order enduringly to establish the power of his kingdom, he still more strongly fortified Jerusalem by building towers at the gates, and the wall of the citadel. At the corner gate, i.e. at the north-west corner of the city (see on xxv. 23 and 2 Kings xiv. 13), and at the valley gate, i.e. on the west side, where the Jaffa gate now is. From these sides Jerusalem was most open to on the east side of Zion, at the place where the wall of Zion crossed over at an angle to the Ophel, and joined itself to the south wall of the temple hill, so that the tower at this corner defended both Zion and the temple hill against attacks from the valley to the south-east. Bp-in^ he made them (thereby) strong or firm; not, he put them in a condition of defence (Berth.), although the making strong was for that end. — Ver. 10. Moreover, Uzziah took measures for the defence of his herds, which formed one main part of his revenues and wealth. He built towers in the wilderness, in the steppe-lands on the west side of the Dead Sea, so well fitted for cattle-breeding (i.e. in the wilderness of Judah), to protect the herds against the attacks of the robber peoples of Edom and Arabia. And he dug many wells to water the cattle; " for he had much cattle" in the wilderness just mentioned, and " in the lowland " (Shephelah) on the Mediterranean Sea (see 1 Chron. xxvii. 28), and "in the plain" piB^fc), i.e. the flat land on the east side of the Dead Sea, extending from Anion to near Heshbon in the north, and to the northeast as far as Rabbath Ammon (see on Deut. iii. 10), i.e. the tribal land of Reuben, which accordingly at that time belonged to Judah. Probably it had been taken from the Israelites by the Moabites and Ammonites, and reconquered from them by Uzziah, and incorporated with his kingdom; for, according to ver. 8, he had made the Ammonites tributary; cf. on 1 Chron. v. 17. Husbandmen and vine-dressers had he in the mountains and upon Carmel, for he loved husbandry. After 'U1 D^SK, i? vn is to be supplied.,"19^., the land, which is cultivated, stands here for agriculture. As to Carmel, see on Josh. xix. 26. — Vers. 11-14. His army. He had a host of fighting men that went out to war by bands (W??, in bands), u in the number of their muster by Jeiel the scribe, and Maaseiah the steward (~1^), under Hananiah, one of the king's captains." The meaning is: that the mustering by which the host was arranged in bands or detachments for war service, was undertaken by (T?) two officials practised in writing and the making up of lists, who were given as assistants to Hananiah, one of the princes of the kingdom p!?y), or placed at his disposal. — Ver. 12. The total number of the heads of the fathers'-houses in valiant heroes (s"])21?? with? of subordination) was 2 COO, and under these {p!T?V, to their hand, i.e. subordinate to them) an army of 307,500 warriors with mighty power, to help the king against the enemy. The army was consequently divided according to the fathers'-houses, so that probably each father's-house formed a detachment p^?) led by the most valiant among them. — Ver. 14. Uzziah supplied this force with the necessary weapons, — shield, lance, helmet, and coat of mail, bows and sling-stones. DH7 is more closely defined by W>. — Ver. 15. Besides this, he provided Jerusalem with machines for defence on the towers and battlements, nfa3$n from fto^rij literally excogitata, i.e. machina?, with the addition " invention of the artificers," are ingenious machines, and as we learn from the following '131 Kfovj slinging machines, similar or corresponding to the catapultce and ballistce of the Romans, by which arrows were shot and great stones propelled. Tims his name spread far abroad (cf. ver. 8), for he was marvellously helped till he was strong.
Vers. 16-22. Uzzialis pride, and chastisement by leprosy. His death and burial. — The fact that the Lord smote Uzziah with leprosy, which continued until his death, so that he was compelled to dwell in a hospital, and to allow his son Jotham to conduct the government, is narrated also in 2 Kings xv. 5; but the cause of this punishment inflicted on him by God is stated only in our verses. — Ver. 16. " When Uzziah had become mighty (inptns as in xii. 1), his heart was lifted up (in pride) unto destructive deeds." He transgressed against Jahve his God, and came into the sanctuary of Jahve to offer incense upon the altar of incense. With a lofty feeling of his power, Uzziah wished to make himself high priest of his kingdom, like the kings of Egypt and of other nations, whose kings were also summi pontijices, and to unite all power in his person, like Moses, who consecrated Aaron and his sons to be priests. Then, and Ewald, indeed, think that the powerful Uzziah wished merely to restore the high-priesthood exercised by David and Solomon; but though both these kings did indeed arrange and conduct religious festal solemnities, yet they never interfered in any way with the official duties reserved for the priests by the law. The arrangement of a religious solemnity, the dedicatory prayer at the dedication of the temple, and the offering of sacrifices, are not specifically priestly functions, as the service by the altars, and the entering into the holy place of the temple, and other sacrificial acts were. — Ver. 17 ff. The king's purpose was consequently opposed by the high priest Azariah and eighty priests, valiant men, who had the courage to represent to him that to burn incense to the Lord did not appertain to the king, but only to the sanctified Aaronite priests; but the king, with the censer in his hand, was angry, and the leprosy suddenly broke out upon his forehead. When the priests saw the leprosy, they removed the king immediately from the holy place; and Uzziah himself also hurried to go forth, because Jahve had smitten him; for lie recognised in the sudden breaking out of the leprosy a punishment from God. Azariah is called tPK"lH jnb, i.e. a high priest, and is in all probability the same person as the high priest mentioned in 1 Chron. v. 36 (see on the passage). "iinD? sjp *6? " It (the offering of incense) is not for thine honour before Jahve." *${, to foam up in anger, i5?£ft, and while he foamed against the priests, i.e. was hot against them, the leprosy had broken out. n?t^"'W, from by = near, the altar. Thus was Uzziah visited with the same punishment, for his haughty disregard of the divinely appointed privileges of the priesthood, as was once inflicted upon Miriam for her rebellion against the prerogatives assigned to Moses by God (Num. xii. 10). — Ver. 21. But Uzziah had to bear his punishment until his death, and dwelt the rest of his life in a separate house, while his son conducted the government for him. This is also recorded in 2 Kings xv. 5 (cf. for n^snn rvs. the commentary on that passage). The reason of the separation of the king from intercourse with others, by his dwelling in the hospital, is given in the Chronicle in the words: u for he was cut off (shut out) from the house of Jahve." This reason can only mean, that because he, as a leper, was shut out from the house of the Lord, he could not live in fellowship with the people of God, but must dwell in a separate house. For the rest, we cannot exactly say how long Uzziah continued to live under the leprosy; but from the fact that his son Jotham, who at Uzziah's death was twenty-five years old, conducted the government for him, so much is clear, viz. that it can only have lasted a year or two. — Ver. 22. The history of his reign was written by the prophet Isaiah (see the Introduction, p. 34). — Ver. 23. At his death, Uzziah, having died in leprosy, was not buried in the graves of the kings, but only in the neighbourhood of them, in the burial-field which belonged to the kings, that his body might not defile the royal graves.
Vers. 1-4. Jotham having ascended the throne at the age of twenty-five, reigned altogether in the spirit and power of his father, with the single limitation that he did not go into the sanctuary of Jahve (cf. xxvi. 16 ff.). This remark is not found in 2 Kings xv., because there Uzziah's intrusion into the temple is also omitted. The people still did corruptly (cf. xxvi. 16). This refers, indeed, to the continuation of the worship in the high places, but hints also at the deep moral corruption which the prophets of that time censure (cf. especially Isa. ii. 5 f., v. 7 ff.; Mic. i. 5, ii. 1 ff.). — Ver. 3 f. He built the upper gate of the house of Jahve, i.e. the northern gate of the inner or upper court (see on 2 Kings xv. 35); the only work of his reign which is mentioned in the book of Kings. But besides this, he continued the fortifying of Jerusalem, which his father had commenced; building much at the wall of the Ophel.?2'yn was the name of the southern slope of the temple mountain (see on xxxiii. 14); the wTall of Ophel is consequently the wall connecting Zion with the temple mountain, at which Uzziah had already built (see on xxvi. 9). He likewise carried on his father's buildings for the protection of the herds (xxvi. 10), building cities in the mountains of Judah, and castles (rrtW3, xvii. 12) and towers in the forests of the mountains of Judah (^Enn from Knn, a thicket).
Vers. 5-9. He made war upon the king of the Ammonites, and overcame them. The Ammonites had before paid tribute to Uzziah. After his death they would seem to have refused to pay this tribute; and Jotham made them again tributary by force of arms. They were compelled to pay him after their defeat, in that same year, 100 talents of silver, 10,000 cor of wheat, and a similar quantity of barley, as tribute, t? ^WTi HNT: this they brought to him again, Le. they paid him the same amount as tribute in the second and third years of their subjection also. After three years, consequently, they would seem to have again become independent, or refused the tribute, probably in the last years of Jotham, in which, according to 2 Kings xv. 37, the Syrian king Kezin and Pekah of Israel began to make attacks upon Judah. — Ver. 6. By all these undertakings Jotham strengthened himself, sc. in the kingdom, i.e. he attained to greater power, because he made his ways firm before Jahve, i.e. walked stedfastly before Jahve; did not incur guilt by falling away into idolatry, or by faithless infringement of the rights of the Lord (as Uzziah did by his interference with the rights of the priesthood). From the Vflbrra"?3 in the concluding remark (ver. 7) we learn that he had waged still other successful wars. The older commentators reckon anion £ these wars, the war against Rezin and Pekah, which kings the Lord began in his days to send against Judah (see 2 Kings xv. 37), but hardly with justice. The position of this note, which is altogether omitted in the Chronicle, at the end of the account of Jotham in 2 Kings xv. 37, appears to hint that this war broke out only towards the end of Jotham's reign, so that he could not undertake anything important against this foe. — Ver. 8. The repetition of the chronological statement already given in ver. 1 is probably to be explained by supposing that two authorities, each of which contained this remark, were used.
In the general statements as to the kino's age, and the duration and the spirit of his reign, both accounts (Chron. vers. 1-4; Kings, vers. 1-4) agree entirely, with the exception of some unessential divergences; see the commentary on 2 Kings xvi. 1-4. From ver. 5 onwards both historians go their own ways, so that they coincide only in mentioning the most important events of the reign of this quite untheocratic king. The author of the book of Kings, in accordance with his plan, records only very briefly the advance of the allied kings Kezin and Pekah against Jerusalem, the capture of the seaport Elath by the Syrians, the recourse which the hard-pressed Ahaz had to the help of Tiglathpileser the king of Assyria, whom he induced, by sending him the temple and palace treasures of gold and silver, to advance upon Damascus, to capture that city, to destroy the Syrian kingdom, to lead the inhabitants away captive to Kir, and to slay King Rezin (vers. 5-9). Then he records how Ahaz, on a visit which lie paid the Assyrian king in Damascus, saw an altar which so delighted him, that he sent a pattern of it to the priest Urijah, with the command to build a similar altar for the temple of the Lord, on which Ahaz on his return not only sacrificed himself, but also commanded that all the sacrifices of the congregation should be offered. And finally, he recounts how he laid violent hands on the brazen vessels of the court, and caused the outer covered sabbath way to be removed into the temple because of the king of Assyria (vers. 10-18); and then the history of Ahaz is concluded by the standing formulae (vers. 19, 20). The author of the Chronicle, on the contrary, depicts in holy indignation against the crimes of the godless Ahaz, how God punished him for his sins. 1. He tells us how God gave Ahaz into the hand of the king of Syria, who smote him and led away many prisoners to Damascus, and into the hand of King Pekah of Israel, who inflicted on him a dreadful defeat, slew 120,000 men, together with a royal prince and two of the highest officials of the court, and carried away 200,000 prisoners — women and children — with a great booty (vers. 5-8); and how the Israelites yet, at the exhortation of the prophet Odecl, and of some of the heads of the people who supported the prophet, again freed the prisoners, provided them with food and clothing, and conducted them back to Jericho (vers. 9-15). 2. He records that Ahaz turned to the king of Assyria for help (ver. 16), but that God still further humbled Israel by an invasion of the land by the Edomites, who carried prisoners away (ver. 17); by an attack of the Philistines, who deprived Judah of a great number of cities (ver. 18); and finally also by the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser, who, although Ahaz had sent him the gold and silver of the temple and of the palaces of the kings and princes, yet did not help him, but rather oppressed him (ver. 20 f.). 3. Then he recounts how, notwithstanding all this, Ahaz sinned still more against Jahve by sacrificing to the idols of the Syrians, cutting up the vessels of the house of God, closing the doors of the temple, and erecting altars and high places in all corners of Jerusalem, and in all the cities of Judah, for the purpose of sacrificing to idols (vers. 22-25). This whole description is planned and wrought out rhetorically; cf. C. P. Caspari, der syrisch-ephraimitische Krieg, S. 42 ff. Out of the historical materials, those facts which show how Ahaz, notwithstanding the heavy blows which Jahve inflicted upon him, always sinned more deeply against the Lord his God, are chosen, and oratorically so presented as not only to bring before us the increasing obduracy of Ahaz, but also, by the representation of the conduct of the citizens and warriors of the kingdom of Israel towards the people of Judah who were prisoners, the deep fall of that kingdom.
Vers. 5-8. The war with the Kings Ttezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel. — On the events of this war, so far as they can be ascertained by uniting the statements of our chapter with the summary account in 2 Kings xvi., see the commentary on 2 Kinrfs xvi. 5 ff. The author of the Chronicle brings the two main battles prominently forward as illustrations of the way in which Jahve gave Ahaz into the power of his enemies because of his defection from Him. Into the power of the king of Aram. They (*32j and they, the Arameans) smote to, in him, i.e. they inflicted on his army a great defeat. Just so also #®0 signifies of his army. HPili n£^, a great imprisonment, i.e. a great number of prisoners. And into the power of the king of Israel, Pekah, who inflicted on him a still greater defeat. He slew in (among) Judah 120,000 men " in one day," i.e. in a great decisive battle. Judah suffered these defeats because they (the men of Judah) had forsaken Jahve the God of their fathers. Judah' s defection from the Lord is not, indeed, expressly mentioned in the first verses of the chapter, but may be inferred as a matter of course from the remark as to the people under Jotham, xxvii. 2. If under that king, who did that which was right in the eyes of Jahve, and stedfastly walked before the Lord (xxvii. 6), they did corruptly, they must naturally have departed much further from the God of the fathers, and been sunk much deeper in the worship of idols, and the worship on high places, under Ahaz, who served the Baals and other idols. — Ver. 7. In this battle, Zichri, an Ephraimite hero, slew three men who were closely connected with the king: Maaseiah, the king's son, i.e. not a son of Ahaz, for in the first years of his reign, in which this war arose, he cannot have had an adult son capable of bearing arms, but a royal prince, a cousin or uncle of Ahaz, as in xviii. 25, xxii. 11, etc. (cf. Caspari, loc. cit. S. 45 if.); Azrikam, a prince of the house, probably not of the house of God (xxxi. 13; 1 Chron. ix. 11), but a high official in the royal palace; and Elkanah, the second from the king, i.e. his first minister; cf. Esth. x. 3, 1 Sam. xxiii. 17. — Ver. 8. The Israelites, moreover, carried away 200,000 — women, sons, and daughters — from their brethren, and a great quantity of spoil, and brought the booty (prisoners and goods; cf. for 7N) of men, Judg. v. 30) to Samaria. B^WIi the brethren of the Israelites, is the name given, with emphasis, to the inhabitants of Judah, here and in ver. 11, in order to point out the cruelty of the Israelites in not scrupling to carry away captive the defenceless women and children of their brethren.
The modern critics have taken offence at the large numbers, 120,000 slain and 200,000 women and children taken prisoners, and have declared them to be exasperations of the wonder-loving chronicler (Gesen. on Isa., De Wette, Winer, etc.). But in this they are mistaken; for if we consider the war more closely, we learn from Isa. vii. 6 that the allied kings purposed to annihilate the kingdom of Judah. And, moreover, the Ephraimites acted always with extreme cruelty in war (cf. 2 Kings xv. 16);
but more especially cherished the fiercest hatred against the men of Judah, because these regarded them as having fallen away from the service of the true God (2 Chron. xxv. 6-10, xiii. 4 if.). But in a war for the existence of the kingdom, Ahaz must certainly have called out the whole male population capable of bearing arms, which is estimated in the time of Amaziah at 300,000 men, and in that of Uzziah at 307,500 (xxv. 5, xxvi. 13), — numbers which appear thoroughly credible, considering the size and populousness of Judah. If we suppose the army of Ahaz to have been as large, in a decisive battle fought with all possible energy nearly 120,000 men may have fallen, especially if the Ephraimites, in their exasperation, unsparingly butchered their enemies, as the narrative would seem to hint both by the word 3"]n in ver. 6, which signifies to murder, massacre, butcher, and by the saying of the prophet, ver. 9, " Ye massacred among them with a rage which reached to heaven." By the character of the war, which resembled a civil or even a religious war, and by the cruelty of the Israelites, the great number of those carried captive is accounted for; for after the great defeat of the men of Judah the whole land fell into the hands of the enemy, so that they could sate their hatred and anger to their heart's content by carrying off the defenceless women and children to make them slaves. And finally, we must also consider that the numbers of the slain and of the prisoners are not founded upon exact enumeration, but upon a mere general estimate. The immense loss which was sustained in the battle was estimated on the side of Judah at 120,000 men; and the number of captive women and children wTas so immense, that they were, or might be, estimated at 200,000 souls, it being impossible to give an exact statement of their number. These numbers were consequently recorded in the annals of the kingdom, whence the author of the Chronicle has taken them; cf. Caspari, S. 37 ff.
Vers. 9-15. Tlie liberation of the prisoners. — In Samaria there was a prophet of the Lord (i.e. not of the Jahve there worshipped in the calf images, but of the true God, like Hosea, who also at that time laboured in the kingdom of the ten tribes), Oded by name. He went forth to meet the army returning with the prisoners and the booty, as Azariah-ben-Oded (xv. 2) once went to meet Asa; pointed out to the warriors the cruelty of their treatment of their brethren, and the guilt, calling to Heaven for vengeance, which they thereby incurred; and exhorted them to turn away the anger of God which was upon them, by sending back the prisoners. To soften the hearts of the rude warriors, and to gain them for his purpose, he tells them (ver. 9), u Because the Lord God of your fathers was wroth, He gave them (the men of Judah) into your hand: " your victory over them is consequently not the fruit of your power and valour, but the work of the God of your fathers, whose wrath Judah has drawn upon itself by its defection from Him. This you should have considered, and so have had pity upon those smitten by the wrath of God; " but ye have slaughtered among them with a rage which reacheth up to heaven," i.e. not merely with a rage beyond all measure, but a rage which calls to God for vengeance; cf. Ezra ix. 6. — Ver. 10. u And now the sons of Judah and Jerusalem ye purpose to subject to yourselves for bondmen and bondwomen! " rvw ^n is accus., and precedes as being emphatic; i.e., your brethren, whom the wrath of God has smitten, you purpose to keep in subjection, crix also is emphatically placed, and then is again emphasized at the end of the sentence by the suffix in E3?: " Are there not, only concerning you, with you, sins with Jahve your God? " i.e., Have you, to regard only you, not also burdened yourselves with many sins against the Lord? The question N?n is a lively way of expressing assurance as to a matter which is not at all doubtful. — Ver. 11. After thus quickening the conscience, he calls upon them to send back the prisoners which they had carried away from among their brethren, because the anger of Jahve was upon them. Already in their pitiless butchery of their brethren they had committed a sin which cried to heaven, which challenged God's anger and His punishments; but by the carrying away of the women and children from their brethren they had filled up the measure of their sin, so that God's anger and rage must fall upon them. — Ver. 12. This speech made a deep impression. Four of the heads of the Ephraimites, here mentioned by name, — according to ver. 12, four princes at the head of the assembled people, — came before those coming from the army (bv &ip? to come forward before one, to meet one), and said, ver. 13, u Bring not the captives hither; for in order that a sin of Jahve come upon us, do you purpose (do you intend) to add to our sins and to our guilt? " i.e. to increase our sins and our guilt by making these prisoners slaves; " for great is our guilt, and fierce wrath upon Israel." — Ver. 14. Then the armed men (P&C^j °f* 1 Chron. xii. 23) who had escorted the prisoners to Samaria left the prisoners and the booty before the princes and the whole assembly. — Ver. 15. "And the men which were specified by name stood up." T\)£>W2 topo "i£>K does not signify those before mentioned (ver. 12), but the men specified by name, distinguished or famous men (see on 1 Chron. xii. 31), among whom, without doubt, those mentioned in ver. 12 are included, but not these alone; other prominent men are also meant. These received the prisoners and the booty, clothed all the naked, providing them with clothes and shoes (sandals) from the booty, gave them to eat and to drink, anointed them, and set all the feeble upon asses, and brought them to Jericho to their brethren (countrymen). The description is picturesque, portraying with satisfaction the loving pity for the miserable. DUETTO, nakedness, abstr. pro concr., the naked.?&?i3"io? is accus., and a nearer definition of the suffix in E^l]^: they brought them, (not all, but only) all the stumbling, who could not, owing to their fatigue, make the journey on foot. Jericho, the city of palm trees, as in Judg. iii. 13, in the tribe of Benjamin, belonged to the kingdom of Judah; see Josh, xviii. 21. Arrived there, the prisoners were with their brethren.
The speech of the prophet Oded is reckoned by Gesenius, on Isaiah, S. 269, among the speeches invented by the chronicler; but very erroneously so: cf. against him, Caspari, loc cit. i. S. 49 ff. The speech cannot be separated from the fact of the liberation of the prisoners carried away from Judah, which it brought about; and that is shown to be a historical fact by the names of the tribal princes of Ephraim, who, in consequence of the warning of the prophet, took his part and accomplished the sending of them back; they being names which are not elsewhere met with (ver. 12). The spontaneous interference of these tribal chiefs would not be in itself impossible, but yet it is very improbable, and becomes perfectly comprehensible or\\y by the statement that these men were roused and encouraged thereto by the word of a prophet. We must consequently regard the speech of the prophet as a fact which is as well established as that narrated in vers. 12-15. a If that which is narrated in ver. 12 ff. be not invented, it would betray the greatest levity to hold that which is recorded in vers. 9-11 to be incredible" (Casp.). And, moreover, the speech of the prophet does not contain the thoughts and phrases current with the author of the Chronicle, but is quite suitable to the circumstances, and so fully corresponds to what we should expect to hear from a prophet on such an occasion, that there is not the slightest reason to doubt the authenticity of its contents. Finally, the whole transaction is exactly parallel to the interference of the prophet Shemaiah in 1 Kings xii. 22-24 (2 Chron. xi. 1-4), who exhorted the army of Judah, fully determined upon war with the ten tribes which had just revolted from the house of David, not to make war upon their brethren the Israelites, as the revolt had been brought about by God. " That fact at the beginning of the history of the two separated kingdoms, and this at the end of it, finely correspond to each other. In the one place it is a Judagan prophet who exhorts the men of Judah, in the other an Ephraimite prophet who exhorts the Ephraimites, to show a conciliatory spirit to the related people; and in both cases they are successful. If we do not doubt the truth of the event narrated in 1 Kings xii. 22-24, why should that recorded in 2 Chron. xxviii. 9-11 be invented?" (Casp. S. 50.)
Vers. 16-21. The further chastisements inflicted upon King Ahaz and the kingdom of Judah. — Ver. 16. At this time, when the kings Kezin and Pekah had so smitten Ahaz, the latter sent to the king of Assyria praying him for help. The time when Ahaz sought the help of the king of Assyria is neither exactly stated in 2 Kings xvi. 7-9, nor can we conclude, as Bertheau thinks we can, from Isa. vii. f. that it happened soon after the invasion of Judah by the allied kings. The plural W&$ "^r*? is rhetorical, like the plur. WS, ver. 3. For, that Ahaz applied only to one king, in the opinion of the chronicler also, we learn from vers. 20, 21. By the plural the thought is expressed that Ahaz, instead of seeking the help of Jahve his God, which the prophet had promised him (Isa. vii. 4 ff.), turned to the kings of the world-power, so hostile to the kingdom of God, from whom he naturally could obtain no real help. Even here the thought which is expressed only in vers. 20, 21, is present to the mind of the author of the Chronicle. For before he narrates the issue of the help thus sought from the Assyrian world-power in vers. 17-19, he ranges all the other afflictions which Judah suffered by its enemies, viz. the devastating inroads of the Edomites and Philistines, in a series of circumstantial clauses, as they preceded in time the oppression of Tiglath-pileser. — Ver. 17 is to be translated, u And besides, the Edomites had come, and had inflicted a defeat upon Judah, and carried away captives." Ity, yet besides, prceterea, as in Gen. xliii. 6, Isa. i. 5. The Edomites had been made subject to the kingdom of Judah only by Amaziah and Uzziah (xxv. 11 ff., xxvi. 2); but freed by Rezin from this (cf. 2 Kings xvi. 6), they immediately seized the opportunity to make an inroad upon Judah, and take vengeance on the inhabitants. — Ver. 18. And the Philistines whom Uzziah had subdued (xxvi. 6) made use of the pressure of the Syrians and Ephraimites upon Judah, not only to shake off the yoke imposed upon them, but also to fall plundering upon the cities of the lowland and the south of Judah, and to extend their territory by the capture of several cities of Judah. They took Beth-shemesh, the present Ain Shems; and Ajalon, the present village Jalo (see on 1 Chron. vi. 44 and 54); Gederoth in the lowland (Josh. xv. 41), not yet discovered, for there are not sufficient grounds for identifying it with Gedera (Josh. xv. 36), which v. de Velde has pointed out south-eastward from Jabneh (see on 1 Chron. xii. 4); Shocho, the present Shuweike, which Rehoboam had fortified (xi. 7); Timnah, on the frontier of the tribal domain of Judah, the present Tibneh, three-quarters of an hour to the west of Ain Shems (see on Josh, xv. 10); and Gimzo, now Jimsu, a large village about two miles south-east of Lydda (Lud) on the way to Jerusalem (Rob. sub voce). The three last-named cities, with their daughters, i.e. the small villages dependent upon them. — Ver. 19. Judah suffered this defeat, because God humbled them on account of Ahaz. Ahaz is called king of Israel, not because he walked in the ways of the kings of the kingdom of the ten tribes (ver. 2), but ironically, because his government was the bitterest satire upon the name of the king of Israel, i.e. of the people of God (Casp.); so that Israel here, and in ver. 27, as in xxi. 2, xii. 6, is used with reference to the pregnant signification of the word. SHBn *3, for (Ahaz) had acted wantonly in Judah; not: made Judah wanton, for Jp£? is construed with 2, not with accus. obj.y as in Ex. v. 4.
After this episode the narrator comes back upon the help which Ahaz sought of the Assyrians. The Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser (on the name, see on 1 Chron. v. 6) did indeed come, but Ivy, against him (Ahaz), and oppressed him, but strengthened him not. iptn NT) to Wl Thenius and Bertheau translate: he oppressed him, that is, besieged him, yet did not overcome him; adducing in support of this, that ptn c. accus, cannot be shown to occur in the signification to strengthen one, and according to Jer. xx. 7, 1 Kings xvi. 22, is to be translated, to overcome. But this translation does not at all suit the reason given in the following clause: "for Ahaz had plundered the house of Jahve,... and given it to the king of Asshur; but it did not result in help to him." The sending away of the temple and palace treasures to the Assyrian king, to obtain his help, cannot possibly be stated as the reason why Tiglath-pileser besieged Ahaz, but did not overcome him, but only as a reason why he did not give Ahaz the expected help, and so did not strengthen him. ipjn tO) corresponds to the v nity? NT), ver. 21, and both clauses refer back to S? "ifV?, ver. 16. That which Ahaz wished to buy from Tiglath-pileser, by sending him the treasures of the palace and the temple, — namely, help against his enemies, — he did not thereby obtain, but the opposite, viz. that Tiglath-pileser came against him and oppressed him. When, on the contrary, Thenius takes the matter thus, that the subjection of Ahaz under Tiglath-pileser was indeed prevented by the treasures given, but the support desired was not purchased by them, he has ungrammatically taken P]n as imperfect, and violently torn away the v rn?y? kti from what precedes. If we connect these words, as the adversative *&] requires, with 'til \R% then the expression, " Ahaz gave the Assyrian king the treasures of the temple,... but it did not result in help to him," gives no support to the idea that Tiglath-pileser besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. The context therefore necessarily demands that Ptn should have the active signification, to strengthen, notwithstanding that ptn in Kal is mainly used as intransitive. Moreover, v "WW also does not denote he besieged, as IvNl "fiffi or ivy, 2 S.am. xx. 15, 1 Sam. xxiii. 8; but only, he oppressed him, and cannot here be translated otherwise than the \? Wl, ver. 22, which corresponds to it, where Bertheau also has decided in favour of the signification oppress. It is not stated wherein the oppression consisted; but without doubt it was that Tiglath-pileser, after he had both slain Rezin and conquered his kingdom, and also taken away many cities in Galilee and the land of NaphtaK from Pekah, carrying away the inhabitants to Assyria (2 Kings xvi. 9 and xv. 29), advanced against Ahaz himself, to make him a tributary. The verbs pbn and 152 (ver. 21) are pluperfects: "for Ahaz had plundered," etc. Not when Tiglath-pileser oppressed him, but when he besought help of that king, Ahaz had sent him the treasures of the temple and the palace as infc^ 2 Kings xvi. 7, 8. p?n denotes to plunder, like???}, a share of booty, Num. xxxi. 36, and booty, Job xvii. 5. The selection of this word for the taking away of the treasures of silver and gold out of the temple and palace arises from the impassioned nature of the language. The taking away of these treasures was, in fact, a plundering of the temple and of the palace. Had Ahaz trusted in the Lord his God, he would not have required to lay violent hands on these treasures. E^rn is added to sfen 1V2, to signify that Ahaz laid hands upon the precious things belonging to the high officials who dwelt in the palace, and delivered them over to the Assyrian king (Berth.).
Although the author of the Chronicle makes the further remark, that the giving of these treasures over did not result in help to Ahaz, yet it cannot be at all doubtful that he had the fact recorded in 2 Kings xvi. 7-9 before his eyes, and says nothing inconsistent with that account. According to 2 Kino;s xvi. 9, Tiglath-pileser, in consequence of the present sent him, took the field, conquered and destroyed the kingdom of Rezin, and also took possession of the northern part of the kingdom of Israel, as is narrated in 2 Kings xv. 29. The author of the Chronicle has not mentioned these events, because Ahaz was not thereby really helped. Although the kings Rezin and Pekah were compelled to abandon their plan of capturing Jerusalem and subduing the kingdom of Judah, by the inroad of the Assyrians into their land, yet this help was to be regarded as nothing, seeing that Tiglath-pileser not only retained the conquered territories and cities for himself, but also undertook the whole campaign, not to strengthen Ahaz, but for the extension of his own (the Assyrian) power, and so made use of it, and, as we are told in ver. 20 of the Chronicle, oppressed Ahaz. This oppression is, it is true, not expressly mentioned in 2 Kings xvi., but is hinted in 2 Kings xvi. 18, and placed beyond doubt by 2 Kings xviii. 7, 14, 20; cf. Isa. xxxvi. 5. In 2 Kings xvi. 18 it is recorded that Ahaz removed the covered sabbath portico which had been built to the house of God, and the external entrance of the king into the house of the Lord, because of (*?B9) the king of Assyria. Manifestly Ahaz feared, as J. D. Mich, has already rightly concluded from this, that the king of Assyria, whom he had summoned to his assistance, might at some time desire to take possession of the city, and that in such a case this covered sabbath porch and an external entrance into the temple might be of use to him in the siege. This note, therefore, notwithstanding its obscurity, yet gives sufficiently clear testimony in favour of the statement in the Chronicle, that the king of Assyria, who had been called upon by Ahaz for help, oppressed him, upon which doubt has been cast by Gesen. Isa. i. S. 269, etc. Tiglath-pileser must have in some way shown a desire to possess Jerusalem, and Ahaz have consequently feared that he might wish to take it by force. But from 2 Kings xviii. 7, 14, 20, cf. Isa. xxxvi. 5, it is quite certain Ahaz had become tributary to the Assyrian king, and the kingdom dependent upon the Assyrians. It is true, indeed, that in these passages, strictly interpreted, this subjection of Judah is only said to exist immediately before the invasion of Sennacherib; but since Assyria made no war upon Judah between the campaign of Tiglath-pileser against Damascus and Samaria and Sennacherib's attack, the subjection of Judah to Assyria, which Hezekiah brought to an end, can only have dated from the time of Ahaz, and can only have commenced when Ahaz had called in Tiglath-pileser to aid him against his enemies. Certainly the exact means by which Tiglath-pileser compelled Ahaz to submit and to pay tribute cannot be recognised under, and ascertained from, the rhetorical mode of expression: Tiglathpileser came against him, and oppressed him. Neither Ivy N3*l nor v "fiW require us to suppose that Tiglath-pileser advanced against Jerusalem with an army, although it is not impossible that Tiglath-pileser, after having conquered the Israelite cities in Galilee and the land of Naphtali, and carried away their inhabitants to Assyria (2 Kings xv. 29), may have made a further advance, and demanded of Ahaz tribute and submission, ordering a detachment of his troops to march into Judah to enforce his demand. But the words quoted do not necessarily mean more than that Tiglath made the demand on Ahaz for tribute from Galilee, with the threat that, if he should refuse it, he would march into and conquer Judah; and that Ahaz, feeling himself unable to cope successfully with so powerful a king, promised to pay the tribute without going to war. Even in this last case the author of the Chronicle might say that the king who had been summoned by Ahaz to his assistance came against him and oppressed him, and helped him not. Cf. also the elaborate defence of the account in the Chronicle, in Caspari, S. 56 ff.
Vers. 22-25. Increase of Ahaz' transgressions against the Lord. — Ver. 22. After this proof that Ahaz only brought greater oppression upon himself by seeking help from the king of
Assyria (vers. 16-21), there follows (ver. 22 f.) an account of how he, in his trouble, continued to sin more and more against God the Lord, and hardened himself more and more in idolatry. 6 "l^ ngM corresponds to the fittln nj>3, ver. 16. " At the time when they oppressed him, he trespassed yet more against the Lord, he King Ahaz." In the last words the rhetorical emphasizing of the subject comes clearly out, The sentence contains a general estimation of the attitude of the godless king under the divine chastisement, which is then illustrated by facts (vers. 23-25). — Ver. 23. He sacrificed to the gods of Damascus, which smote him, saying, i.e. thinking, The gods of the kings of Aram which helped them, to them will I sacrifice, and they will help me. *3 serves to introduce the saying, and both BH and D[6 are rhetorical. Berth, incorrectly translates the participle D*3En by the pluperfect: who had smitten him. It was not after the Syrians had smitten him that Ahaz sought to gain by sacrifice the help of their gods, but while the Syrians were inflicting defeats upon him; not after the conclusion of the Syrian war, but during its course. The ungrammatical translation of the participle by the pluperfect arises from the view that the contents of our verse, the statement that Ahaz sacrificed to the Syrian gods, is an unhistorical misinterpretation of the statement in 2 Kings xvi. 10 ff., about the altar which Ahaz saw when he went to meet the Assyrian king in Damascus, and a copy of which he caused to be made in Jerusalem, and set up in the temple court, in the place of the copper altar of burnt-offering. But we have already rejected that view as unfounded, in the exposition of 2 Kings xvi. 10. Since Ahaz had cast and erected statues to the Baals, and even sacrificed his son to Moloch, he naturally would not scruple to sacrifice to the Assyrian gods to secure their help. But they (these gods) brought ruin to him and to all Israel, rfe*v3? is in the accusative, and co-ordinate with the suffix in "Wn. — Ver. 24 f. Not content with thus worshipping strange gods, Ahaz laid violent hands upon the temple vessels and suppressed the temple worship. He collected all the vessels of the house of God together, and broke them in pieces. These words also are rhetorical, so that neither the *P*£, which depicts the matter vividly, nor the?b, is to be pressed. The Y^p of the vessels consisted, according to 2 Kings xvi. 17, in this, that he mutilated the artistically wrought vei of the court, and cut out the panels from the bases, and took away the lavers from them, and took down the brazen sea from the oxen on which it stood, and set it upon a pavement of stones. " And he closed the doors of the house of Jahve," in order to put an end to the Jahve-wrorship in the temple, which he regarded as superfluous, since he had erected altars at the corners of all the streets in Jerusalem, and in all the cities of Judah. The statement as to the closing of the temple doors, to which reference is made in chap. xxix. 3, 7, is said by Berth, not to rest upon good historical recollection, because the book of Kings not only does not say anything of it, but also clearly gives us to understand that Ahaz allowed the Jahve-worship to continue, 2 Kings xvi. 15 f. That the book of Kings (ii. 16) makes no mention of this circumstance does not prove much, it being an argumentum e silentio; for the book of Kings is not a complete history, it contains only a short excerpt from the history of the kings; while the intimation given us in 2 Kings xvi. 15 f. as to the continuation of the worship of Jahve, may without difficulty be reconciled with the closing of the temple doors. The rrinTi mrp JVn are not the gates of the court of the temple, but, according to the clear explanation of the Chronicle, chap. xxix. 7, the doors of the porch, which in xxix. 3 are also called doors of the house of Jahve; the " house of Jahve" signifying here not the wdiole group of temple buildings, but, in the narrower sense of the words, denoting only the main body of the temple (the Holy Place and the Most Holy, wherein Jahve was enthroned). By the closing of the doors of the porch the worship of Jahve in the Holy Place and the Most Holy was indeed suspended, but the worship at the altar in the court was not thereby necessarily interfered with: it might still continue. Now it is the worship at the altar of burnt-offering alone of which it is said in 2 Kings xvi. 15 that Ahaz allowed it to continue to this extent, that he ordered the priest Urijah to offer all the burnt-offerings and sacrifices, meat-offerings and drink-offerings, which were offered morning and evening by both king and people, not upon the copper sacrificial altar (Solomon's), but on the altar built after the pattern of that which he had seen at Damascus. The cessation of worship at this altar is also left unmentioned by the Chronicle, and in xxix. 7. Ilezekiah, when he again opened the doors of the house of Jahve, only says to the priests and Levites, " Our fathers have forsaken Jahve, and turned their backs on His sanctuary; yea, have shut the doors of the porch, put out the lamps, and have not burnt incense nor offered burnt-offerings in the Holy Place unto the God of Israel" Sacrificing upon an altar built after a heathen model was not sacrificing to the God of Israel. There is therefore no ground to doubt the historical truth of the statement in our verse. The description of the idolatrous conduct of Ahaz concludes with the remark, ver. 25, that Ahaz thereby provoked Jahve, the God of his fathers, to anger.
Vers. 26 and 27. The end of his reign. — Ver. 27. Ahaz indeed both died and was buried in the city, in Jerusalem (as 2 Kings xvi. 20), but was not laid in the graves of the kings, because he had not ruled like a king of the people of God, the true Israel. Since the name Israel is used in a pregnant sense, as in ver. 19, the terms in which the place where he died is designated, u in the city, in Jerusalem," would seem to have been purposely selected to intimate that Ahaz, because he had not walked during life like his ancestor David, was not buried along with David when he died.
Hezekiah, the pious son of the godless Ahaz, recognised that it was to be the business of his rei^n to brino; the kinfrdom out of the utterly ruinous condition into which Ahaz had brought it by his idolatry and his heathen policy, and to elevate the state again, both in respect to religion and morals, and also in political affairs. He consequently endeavoured, in the first place, to do away with the idolatry, and to restore the Jahve-worship according to the law, and then to throw off the yoke of subjection to the Assyrian. These two undertakings, on the success of which God bestowed His blessing, form the contents of the history of his reign both in the books of Kings and in the Chronicle; but they are differently treated by the authors of these books. In the book of Kings, the extirpation of idolatry, and Ilezekiah's faithfulness in cleaving to the Lord his God, are very briefly recorded (2 Kings xvii. 3-7); while the throwing off of the Assyrian yoke, which brought on Sennacherib's invasion, and ended with the destruction of the Assyrian army before Jerusalem, and the further results of that memorable event (the sickness and recovery of Hezekiah, the arrival of a Babylonian embassy in Jerusalem, and Hezekiah's reception of them), are very fully narrated in 2 Kings xviii. 8- xx. 19. The author of the Chronicle, on the contrary, enlarges upon Hezckiah's reform of the cultus, the purification of the temple from all idolatrous abominations, the restoration of the Jahve-worship, and a solemn celebration of the passover, to which the king invited not only his own subjects, but also the remainder of the ten tribes (chap, xxix.-xxxi.); and gives merely a brief summary of the chief points in Sennacherib's invasion, and the events connected writh it (chap, xxxii.).
Chap. xxix. The beginning of Ids reign (vers. 1, 2). Purification and consecration of the temple (vers. 3-36). — Vers. 1 and 2. Age of Hezekiah, duration and spirit of his reign, as in 2 Kings xviii. 1-3. With ver. 3 the account of the restoration of the Jahve-worship begins. In the first year of his reign, in the first month, Hezekiah caused the temple doors to be opened, and the priests and Levites to assemble, in order that he might rouse them by an energetic address to purify the house of God from all the uncleannesses of idolatry (vers. 3-11). They, vigorously commencing the work, completed the purification of the temple with its courts and vessels in sixteen days, and reported to the king what had been done (vers. 12-19); and then the king and the chiefs of the city offered a great sacrifice to consecrate the purified sanctuary, upon which followed burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and thankofferings of the whole assembly (vers. 20-36).
Vers. 3-19. The purification of the temple by the priests and Levites. — Ver. 3. In the first year of his reign, in the first month, he caused the doors of the house of Jahve to be opened and repaired (P*H as in xxiv. 12, where it alternates with BNn). Cf. herewith the remark in 2 Kings xviii. 16, that Hezekiah caused the doors of the?yr\ to be covered with leaf-gold. The date, in the first month, in the first year of his reign, is variously interpreted. As the Levites, according to ver. 17, began the purification on the first day of the first month, in eight days had reached the porch, and on the sixteenth day of the first month had completed the work, while the king had, according to ver. 4, before called upon the priests and Levites to sanctify themselves for the work, and those summoned then assembled their brethren for this purpose, and after they had consecrated themselves, began the cleansing (ver. 15), it would seem as if the summons of the king and the calling together of the remaining Levites had occurred before the first day of the first month, when they began the purification of the house of God. On that account Caspari (Beitrage z. Einleit. in d. B. Jesaiah, S. Ill) thinks that the first month (ver. 3) is not the first month of the year (Nisan), but the first month of the reign of Hezekiah, who probably became king shortly before Nisan, towards the end of the year. But it is not at all likely that fiVtiKT} W*}pn is used in a different sense in ver. 3 from that in which it is used in ver. 17. We therefere hold, with Berth, and others, the first month, both in ver. 3 and in ver. 17, to be the first month of the ecclesiastical year Nisan, without, however, accepting the supposition of Gumpach and Bertheau that the years of Hezekiah's reign began with the first of Tishri, for for that way of reckoning there are no certain data in the historical books of the Old Testament. The statement, "in the first year of his reign, in the first month" (not in the first year, in the first month of his reign), is sufficiently explained if Hezekiah ascended the throne in one of the last months of the calendar year, which began with Nisan. In that case, on the first of Nisan of the new year, so few months, or perhaps only weeks, would have elapsed since his accession, that what he did in Nisan could not rightly have been dated otherwise than u in the first year of his reign." The other difficulty, that the purification of the temple began on the first day of the first month (ver. 7), while the preparations for it which preceded wrere yet, according to ver. 3, made also in the first month, is removed if we take ver. 3 to be a comprehensive summary of what is described in the following verses, and regard the connection between vers. 3 and 4 ff. as only logical, not chronological, the 1 consec. (K?J!) expressing, not succession in time, but connection in thought. The opening of the doors of the house of God, and the repairing of them (ver. 3), did not precede in time the summons to the priests (ver. 4), but is placed at the commencement of the account of the reopening and restoration of the temple as a contrast to the closing and devastation of the sanctuary by Ahaz. Hezekiah commenced this work in the first year of his reign, in the first month of the calendar year, and accomplished it as is described in vers. 4-17. If we take ver. 3 as a statement of the contents of the succeeding section, — as are e.g. (1 Kings vi. 14, vii. 1) the statements, a he built the house, and completed it," where in both passages the completion of the building is described only in the succeeding verses, — we need not confine the preparations spoken of in vers. 4-15 to the first day of the first month, but may quite well suppose that these preparations preceded the first day of the month, and that only the accomplishment of that which had been resolved upon and commanded by the king fell in the first month, as is more accurately stated in ver. 17. — Ver. 4. Hezekiah gathered the priests and Levites together " into the open space of the east," i.e in the eastern open space before the temple, not u in the inner court" (Berth.), — see on Ezra x. 9, — and called upon them (ver. 5) to sanctify themselves, and then to sanctify the house of the Lord. To purify the temple they must first sanctify themselves (cf. ver. 15), in order to proceed to the work of sanctifying the house of God in a state of Levitical purity. The work was to remove all that was unclean from the sanctuary. n^3i1 is Levitical uncleanness, for which in ver. 16 we have HNftBn • here the abominations of idolatry. The king gave the reason of his summons in a reference to the devastation which Ahaz and his contemporaries had wrought in the house of God (vers. 6, 7), and to the wrath of God which had on that account come upon them (vers. 8, 9). " Our fathers" (ver. 6), that is, Ahaz and his contempo* raries, for only these had been guilty of displeasing God in the ways mentioned in vers. 6 and 7, " have turned away their face from the dwelling of Jahve, and turned their back (upon it)." These words are a symbolical expression for: they have ceased to worship Jahve in His temple, and exchanged it for idolatry. — Ver. 7. Even (D3) the doors of the porch have they shut, and caused the service in the sanctuary, the lighting of the lamps, and the sacrifices of incense, to cease; see on xxviii. 24. The words, " and they brought not burnt-offerings in the sanctuary to the God of Israel," do not imply the complete cessation of the legal sacrificial worship, but only that no burnt-offerings were brought to the God of Israel. Sacrifices offered upon the altar of burnt-offering built after a heathen pattern by Ahaz were not, in the eyes of the author of the Chronicle, sacrifices which were offered to the God of Israel; and it is also possible that even this sacrificial worship may have more and more decayed. Bhp, ver. 7, is the whole sanctuary, with the court of the priests. — Ver. 8 f. Wherefore the wrath of the Lord came upon Judah and Jerusalem. Cf. for the expression, xxiv. 18, xxxii. 25; on ver. 8Z>, cf. Deut. xxviii. 25, 37, Jer. xxiv. 9, xxv. 9, etc. u As ye see with your eyes." The shameful defeats which Judah had sustained under Ahaz from the Syrians, Ephraimitcs, Philistines, and Edomites, and the oppression by the Syrian king (xxviii. 5 ff., vers. 17-21), are here referred to, as we learn from ver. 9. — Ver. 10. To turn away this anger of God, Hezekiah wishes to make a covenant with the Lord, i.e. to renew the covenant with Jahve by restoring His worship (*33? UV as in vi. 7, ix. 1, 1 Chron. xxviii. 2, etc.), and therefore calls upon the Levites not to neglect the performance of their duty. ^3 he calls the Levites, addressing them in kindly language; cf. Prov. i. 8, etc. wi? in Niph. occurs only here, and denotes to avoid a thing from carelessness or laziness, — from H7$, to draw forth; Job xxvii. 8. On ver. 11&, cf. Deut. x. 8, 1 Chron. xxiii. 13.
Vers. 12-19. This address was heard with gladness. The Levites present assembled their brethren, and set to work, after they had all sanctified themselves, to purify the temple. In vers. 12-14 fourteen names are mentioned as those of the audience, viz.: two Levites of each of the great families of Kohath, Merari, and Gershon; two of the family of Elizaphan, i.e. Elzaphan the son of Uzziel, the son of Kohath, Ex. vi. 18, who in the time of Moses was prince of the family of Kohath, Num. iii. 30; and then two Levites of the descendants of Asaph (of the family of Gershon); two of Heman's descendants (of the family of Kohath); and two of Jeduthun's (of the family of Merari): see on 1 Chron. vi. 18-32. Of these names, Mahath, Eden, and Jehiel occur again in chap. xxxi. 13-15; several others, Joah ben Zimmah and Kish ben Abdi, have occurred already in the genealogy, 1 Chron. vi. 5 f. and ver. 29, for in the various families the same name often repeats itself. — Ver. 15. These fourteen heads of the various families and branches of Levi assembled their brethren (the other Levites who dwelt in Jerusalem); then they all sanctified themselves, and went forward, according to the command of the kin£ with the work of cleansino; the temple, run* •nmn belongs to '&n nrcos according to the command of the king, which was founded upon the words of Jahve, i.e. upon the commands of Moses' law; cf. xxx. 12. — Ver. 16. The priests went into the inner part of the house of the Lord (into the holy place, probably also into the most holy place) to cleanse it, and removed all the uncleanness which was there into the court, whence the Levites carried it out into the valley of the brook Kidron (n^nj ou^ °f the precincts of the temple). The Levites were forbidden by the law to enter the holy place, and this command was strictly observed. Of what nature the uncleannesses were which the priests found in the holy place
P?*D) cannot be accurately ascertained. Owing to the prevalence of idolatry under Ahaz, vessels, e.g. sacrificial bowls, which were used in the worship, may have come into the holy place; and besides, all vessels of the holy place would require to be cleaned, and their filth removed. The closing of the temple doors (xxviii. 24) occurred only in the last year of Ahaz, while idolatry had been practised from the beginning of his reign. On the Kidron, see on 2 Kings xxiii. 4. — Ver. 17. The duration of the purification. On the first day of the first month they commenced with the purification of the courts; on the eighth day of the same month they came to the porch of Jahve, and with it began the purification of the temple building. This lasted eight days more, so that the work was finished on the sixteenth day of the first month. — Ver. 18 f. At the end of this business they made their report to the king. " All the vessels wrhich King Ahaz had thrown away, i.e. made worthy of rejection," are the copper altar of burnt-offering, the brazen sea, and the lavers upon the bases (2 Kings xvi. 14, 17). E3H, we have prepared, is a shorter form of ttSran; cf. Gesen. Gramm. § 72. 5, and J. Olshausen, hebr. Grammat. S. 565. The altar of Jahve is the altar of burnt-offering; cf. ver. 21.
Vers. 20-30. The re-dedication of the temple by offering sacrifices.— Ver. 20. Probably on the very next morning Hezekiah went with the princes (heads) of the city into the house of the Lord, and brought seven bullocks, seven rams, and seven lambs for a burnt-offering, and seven he-goats for a sin-offering, " for the kingdom, for the sanctuary, and for Judah," i.e. as expiation for and consecration of the kingdom, sanctuary, and people. These sacrifices were offered by the priests according to the prescription of the law of Moses, vers. 22-24. The burntofferings are first named, as in the sacrificial Torah in Lev. i.-vi., although the offering of the sin-offering preceded that of the burnt-offering. The laying on of hands, too, is mentioned only with the sin-offering, ver. 23, although according to Lev. i. 4 the same ceremony was gone through with the burnt-offerings; but that is not because a confession of sin was probably made during the laying on of hands, as Bertheau conjectures, adducing Lev. xvi. 21, for from that passage no such conclusion can be drawn. The ceremony is mentioned only in the one case to emphasize the fact that the king and the assembly (the latter, of course, by their representatives) laid their hands upon the sacrificial beasts, because the atonement was, according to the king's words, to be for all Israel. "All Israel" are probably not only all the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah, but Israelites in general (the twelve tribes), for whom the temple in Jerusalem was the only lawful sanctuary, tn nx Ntan signifies to bring the blood to the altar for an atonement, in the manner prescribed in Lev. iv. 30, 34. — Ver. 25. Hezekiah, moreover, restored again the music with which the Levites were wont to accompany the sacrificial act, and which David, with the prophets Gad and Nathan, had arranged. The 1 consec. with 1?W expresses the secution of thought, and ver. 25 corresponds to the 21st verse. First, the beasts to be sacrificed were prepared for the sacrifice, and then to the Levites was committed the performance of instrumental and vocal music during the sacrificial act. In reference to the musical instruments, see on 1 Chron. xv. 16. The Levites were appointed to sing, " according to the command of David;" but this command was T3, by interposition of Jahve, viz. given by His prophets. David had consequently made this arrangement at the divine suggestion, coming to him through the prophets. With ^n nth cf. 1 Chron. xxi. 9. VfrTlJ T2 is in explanatory apposition to flW T3, and VWIU is not to be referred to David, although David is called in viii. 14 " man of God." — Ver. 26. W v3 are the musical instruments the use of which David introduced into the public worship; see 1 Chron. xxiii. 5. — The first clause, ver. 27, " And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt-offering upon the altar," is repeated from ver. 21 to form a connection for what follows: "At the time when the sacrificial act began, the song of Jahve commenced," i.e. the praising of Jahve by song and instrumental music (mrp TB? = iW? VB>, 1 Chron. xxv. 7), and (the blowing) of trumpets, " and that under the leading (*T?V) of the instruments of David." This is to be understood as denoting that the blowing of the trumpets regulated itself by the playing of the stringed instruments,— suited itself to the song and the music of the stringed instruments. — Ver. 28. During the offering of the burnt-offering, until it was ended, the whole congregation stood worshipping; and the song of the Levites, accompanied by the music of the stringed instruments and the trumpet-blowing of the priests, continued. Tl^P *W$?s u the song was singing," stands for " the body of singers sang;" and the trumpets also stand for the trumpeters. — Ver. 29. At the conclusion of the sacrificial act
(nftgnb is a contraction for n^iyn TOgn?, ver. 27) the king and all who were present knelt and worshipped. — Ver. 30. The king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words (psalms) of David and of Asaph; and they sang praise with joy, and bowed themselves and worshipped. This verse does not mean that the Levites began to sing psalms at the king's command only after the sacrificial act and the instrumental music (ver. 27 f.) had been finished, but it forms a comprehensive conclusion of the description of the sacrificial solemnities. The author of the Chronicle considered it necessary to make express mention of the praising of God in psalms, already implicite involved in the "ni^B "M#J, ver. 28, and to remark that the Levites also, at the conclusion of the song of praise, knelt and worshipped. Asaph is here called fithj as Jeduthun (Ethan) is in chap. xxxv. 15, and Heman, 1 Chron. xxv. 5.
Vers. 31-36. The sacrifice of thank-offerings and praise-offerings and voluntary burnt-offerings. — Hezekiah introduces this, the concluding act of this religious festival, with the words, a Now have ye filled your hand to the Lord," i.e. you have again consecrated yourselves to the service of the Lord (cf. Ex. xxxii. 39 and the commentary on Lev. vii. 37 f.); " come near, and bring sacrifices and thank-offerings into the house of the Lord." The words "Now have ye filled" are regarded by the commentators (Clericus, Ramb., Bertheau, etc.) as addressed to the priests; while the following 'm ^*| are supposed to be directed to the congregation, and Clericus and Ramb. consequently supply before ^3? vos vero, Israelite?. The summons ^ani Wfy can certainly only be addressed to the congregation, as is shown by the words 5>nj5il ^W} and the congregation brought, which correspond to the summons. But the supplying of vos ver,o before ^3 is quite arbitrary. If in WZ other persons are addressed than those to whom the king formerly said, "Now have ye filled your hands," the change in the persons addressed would have been intimated by mention of the person, or at least by sris^ " but ye." As the two clauses at present stand, they must be spoken to the same persons, viz. the whole assembled congregation, including the priests and Levites. We must therefore suppose that the phrase v T K?Dj which in its narrower sense denotes only the consecration of the priests for service at the altar (see on Lev. vii. 37), is here used in a wider sense, and transferred to the whole congregation. They, by their participation in the consecratory offerings, by laying on of hands and worship during the sacrificial act, had consecrated themselves anew to the service of the Lord as their God, and had anew made a covenant with the Lord (ver. 10); so that only the sacrificial meal was wanting to the completion of this celebration of the covenant, and for this the offering of sacrifices was requisite. The collocation B^nst nnin*) is strange. B^t are ETOK> Q,,C9?> sacrifices of peace-offering, also called briefly E^72\ Of these, in the law, three species — praise-offerings (rrilifi), vowed offerings, and voluntary offerings — are distinguished (Lev. vii. 11, 16). nftin therefore denotes a species of the sacrifices or peace-offerings, the praise or thankofferings in the stricter sense; and rrtlini must be taken as explicative: sacrifices, and that (or namely) praise-offerings. 3H3"?31 2?, and every one who was heartily willing, (brought) burntofferings; i.e., all who felt inwardly impelled to do so, brought of their own accord burnt-offerings. — Ver. 32. The number of the burnt-offerings brought spontaneously by the congregation was very large: 70 bullocks, 100 rams, and 200 lambs. — Ver. 33. D*?*Tgni, and the consecrated, i.e. the beasts brought as thankoffering (cf. xxxv. 13, Neh. x. 34), were 600 bullocks and 3000 small cattle (sheep and goats). — In vers. 34-36 the account closes with some remarks upon these sacrifices and the festal solemnity. Ver. 34. But there were too few priests, and they were not able (so that they were not able) to flay all the burnt-offerings; and their brethren the Levites helped them till the work was ended (i.e. the flaying), and until the priests had sanctified themselves. In the case of private burnt-offerings the flaying of the beast was the business of the sacrificer (Lev. i. 6); while in the case of those offered on solemn occasions in the name of the con eregation it was the priest's duty, and in it, as the work was not of a specifically priestly character, the Levites might assist. The burnt-offerings which are spoken of in ver. 34 are not merely those voluntarily offered (ver. 34), but also the consecratory burntofferings (vers. 22, 27). Only ver. 35 refers to the voluntary offerings alone. "For the Levites had been more upright to sanctify themselves than the priests." 27 HB^ rectiores annuo, had endeavoured more honestly. Perhaps the priests had taken more part in the idolatrous worship of Ahaz than the Levites, which would be quite accounted for, as Kuepcr, das Priesterth, des A. Bundes (1870), S. 216, remarks, by their relation to the court of the king, and their dependence upon it. They consequently showed themselves more slack even in the purification than the Levites, who forte etiam idololatricis sacris minus contaminati et impediti erant (Ramb.). — Ver. 35 gives yet another reason why the Levites had to help the priests: u And also the burnt-offerings were in abundance, with the fat of the peaceofferings, and the drink-offerings for every burnt -offering." The priests could not accomplish the flaying for this reason also, that they had, besides, to see to the proper altar service (sprinkling of the blood, and burning of the sacrifices upon the altar), which taxed their strength, since, besides the consecratory burntofferings, there were the voluntary burnt-offerings (ver. 31), which were offered along with the thank-offerings and the drinkofferings, which belonged to the burnt-offerings of Num. xv. 1-15. Thus the service of the house of Jahve was arranged. rnny is not the purification and dedication of the temple (Berth.), but only the sacrificial service, or rather all that concerned the regular temple worship, which had decayed under Ahaz, and had at length wholly ceased. — Ver. 36. Hezekiah and the whole people rejoiced because of it. r^H? 'V9 over that which God had prepared for the people (by the purification of the temple and the restoration of the Jahve-worship), not " because God had made the people ready" (Ramb., Berth.). The article with PH represents the relative pronoun 1SW; see on 1 Chron. xxvi. 28. The joy was heightened by the fact that the thing was done suddenly.
Chap. xxx. The celebration of tJiepassover. — Vers. 1-12. The preparations for this celebration. — Ver. 1. Hezekiah invited all Israel and Judah to it; " and he also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasseh," the two chief tribes of the northern kingdom, which here, as is manifest from vers. 5, 10, are named instar omnium. But the whole sentence serves only to elucidate 7X"}i^~?3?V IwJ. To all Israel (of the ten tribes) he sent the invitation, and this he did by letters. The verse contains a general statement as to the matter, which is further described in what follows. — Ver. 2. The king consulted with his princes and the whole assembly in Jerusalem, i.e. with the community of the capital assembled in their representatives for this purpose, as to keeping the passover in the second month. This was (Num. ix. 6-13) allowed to those who, by uncleanness or by absence on a distant journey, were prevented from holding the feast at the lawful time, the 14th of the first month. Both these reasons existed in this case (ver. 3): the priests had not sufficiently sanctified themselves, and the people had not assembled in Jerusalem, sc. at the legal time in the first month. **W?) contracted from,|T,"1^? that which is sufficient, is usually interpreted, u not in sufficient number " (Rashi, Vulg., Berth., etc.); but the reference of the word to the number cannot be defended, ^u? denotes only ad sufficientiam, and means not merely that the priests had not sanctified themselves in such numbers as were required for the slaughtering and offering of the paschal lambs, but that the priesthood in general was not yet sufficiently consecrated, many priests not having at that time wholly renounced idolatry and consecrated themselves anew. Nor does the passage signify, as Bertheau says it does, "that although the purification of the temple was completed only on the sixteenth day of the first month (xxix. 17), the passover would yet have been celebrated in the first month, though perhaps not on the legal fourteenth day, had not a further postponement become necessary for the reasons here given; " for there is nothing said in the text of a " further postponement." That is just as arbitrarily dragged into the narrative as the idea that Hezekiah ever intended to hold the passover on another day than the legal fourteenth day of the month, which is destitute of all support, and even of probability. The postponement of the passover until the second month in special circumstances was provided for by the law, but the transfer of the celebration to another day of the month was not. Such a transfer would have been an illegal and arbitrary innovation, which we cannot suppose Hezekiah capable of. Rather it is clear from the consultation, that the king and his princes and the congregations were persuaded that the passover could be held only on the fourteenth day of the month; for they did not consult as to the day, but only as to the month, upon the basis of the law: if not in the first, then at any rate in the second month. The day was, for those consulting, so definitely fixed that it was never discussed, and is not mentioned at all in the record. If this were so, then the consultation must have taken place in the first month before the fourteenth day, at a time when the lawful day for the celebration was not yet past. This is implied in the words, lt for they could not hold it at that time." W^n DVn is the first month, in contrast to " in the second month; " not this or that day of the month. Now, since the reason given for their not being able to hold it in the first month is that the priests had not sufficiently purified themselves, and the people had not assembled themselves in Jerusalem, we learn with certainty from these reasons that it is not a celebration of the passover in the first year of Hezekiah's reign which is here treated of, as almost all commentators think.1 In the whole narrative there is nothing to favour such a supposition, except (1) the circumstance that the account of this celebration is connected by 1 consec. (in IW5) with the preceding purification of the temple and restoration of the Jahve-worship which took place in the first year of Hezekiah's reign; and (2) the statement that the priests had not sufficiently sanctified themselves, ver. 3, which, when compared with that in chap. xxix. 34, that the number of priests who had sanctified themselves was not sufficient to flay the beasts for sacrifice, makes it appear as if the passover had been celebrated immediately after the consecration of the temple; and (3) the mention of the second month in ver. 2, which, taken in connection with the mention of the first month in xxix. 3, 17, seems to imply that the second month of the first year of Hezekiah's reign is meant. But of these three apparent reasons none is convincing.
The use of 1 consec. to connect the account of the celebration of the passover with the preceding, without the slightest hint that the celebration took place in another (later) year, is fully accounted for by the fact that in no case is the year in which any event of Hezekiah's twenty-nine years' reign occurred stated in the Chronicle. In chap, xxxii. 1, Sennacherib's invasion of Judah is introduced only by the indefinite formula, u and after these events," though it happened in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah; while the arrangements as to the public worship made by this king, and recorded in chap, xxxi., belong to the first years of his reign. Only in the case of the restoration of the Jahve-worship is it remarked, xxix. 3, that Hezekiah commenced it in the very first year of his reign, because that was important in forming an estimate of the spirit of his reign; but the statement of the year in which his other acts were done had not much bearing upon the practical aim of the chronicler. Nor does the reason given for the transfer of the celebration of the passover to the second month, viz. that the priests had not
1 Cf. the elaborate discussion of this question in Caspari, Beitrr. zur Einl, in das B. Jesaja, S. 109 IT.
sufficiently sanctified themselves, prove that the celebration took place in the first year of Hezekiah. During the sixteen years' reign of the idolater Ahaz, the priesthood had beyond doubt fallen very low, — become morally sunk, so that the majority of them would not immediately make haste to sanctify themselves for the Jahve-worship. Finally, the retrospective reference to xxix. 3, 17, would certainly incline us to take W'n Bhrra to mean the second month of the first year; but yet it cannot be at once taken in that sense, unless the reasons given for the transfer of the celebration of the passover to the second month point to the first year. But these reasons, so far from doing so, are rather irreconcilable with that view. The whole narrative, chap. xxix. and xxx., gives us the impression that Hezekiah had not formed the resolution to hold a passover to which the whole of Israel and Judah, all the Israelites of the ten tribes as well as the citizens of his kingdom-, should be invited before or during the purification of the temple; at least he did not consult with his princes and the heads of Jerusalem at that time. According to xxix. 20, the king assembled the princes of the city only after the report had been made to him, on the completion of the purification of the temple on the sixteenth day of the first month, when he summoned them to the dedication of the purified temple by solemn sacrifice. But this consecratory solemnity occupied several days. The great number of burnt-offerings, — first seven bullocks, seven rams, and seven lambs, besides the sin-offering for the consecration of the temple (xxix. 21); then, after the completion of these, the voluntary burnt-offering of the congregation, consisting of 70 bullocks, 100 rams, and 200 lambs, together with and exclusive of the thank-offerings (xxix. 32), — could not possibly be burnt on one day on one altar of burnt-offering, and consequently the sacrificial meal could not well be held on the same day. If, then, the king consulted with the princes and the assembly about the passover after the conclusion of or during celebration, — say in the time between the seventeenth and the twentieth day, — it could not be said that the reason of the postponement of the passover was that the priests had not yet sufficiently sanctified themselves, and the people were not assembled in Jerusalem: it would only have been said that the fourteenth day of the first month was already past. Caspari has therefore rightly regarded this as decisive. But besides that, the invitation to all Israel (of the ten tribes) to this passover is more easily explained, if the celebration of it took place after the breaking up of the kingdom of the ten tribes by the Assyrians, than if it was before that catastrophe, in the time of Hosea, the last king of that kingdom. Though King Hosea may not have been so evil as some of his predecessors, yet it is said of him also, " he did that which was evil in the sight of Jahve" (2 Kings xvii. 2). Would Hezekiah have ventured, so long as Hosea reigned, to invite his subjects to a passover at Jerusalem? and would Hosea have permitted the invitation, and not rather have repelled it as an interference with his kingdom? Further, in the invitation, the captivity of the greater part of the ten tribes is far too strongly presupposed to allow us to imagine that the captivity there referred to is the carrying away of several tribes by Tiglath-pileser. The words, u the escaped who are left to you from the hand of the king of Assyria " (ver. 6), presuppose more than the captivity of the two and a half trans-Jordanic tribes and the Naphtalites; not merely because of the plural, the " kings of Assur," but also because the remaining five and a half tribes were not at all affected by Tiglath-pileser's deportation, while there is no mention made of any being carried away by King Pul, nor is it a probable thing in itself; see on 1 Chron. v. 26. Finally, according to chap. xxxi. 1, the Israelites who had been assembled in Jerusalem for the passover immediately afterwards destroyed the pillars, Astartes, high places, and altars, not merely in all Judah and Benjamin, but also in Ephraim and Manasseh (consequently even in the capital of the kingdom of the ten tribes), " unto completion," i.e. completely, leaving nothing of them remaining. Is it likely that King Hosea, and the other inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes who had not gone to the passover, but had laughed at and mocked the messengers of Hezekiah (ver. 10), would have quietly looked on and permitted this? All these things are incomprehensible if the passover was held in the first year of Hezekiah, and make it impossible to accept that view.
Moreover, even the preparation for this passover demanded more time than from the seventeenth day of the first month to the fourteenth day of the second. The calling of the whole people together, u from Dan to Beersheba" (ver. 5), could not be accomplished in three weeks. Even if Hezekiah's messengers may have gone throughout the land and returned home again in that time, we yet cannot suppose that those invited, especially those of the ten tribes, could at once commence their journey, so as to appear in Jerusalem at the time of the feast. In consequence of all these things, we must still remain stedfastly of the opinion already expressed in the Commentary on the Boohs of Kings (vol. ii. p. 81 if.), that this passover was not held in the first year of Hezekiah, only a week or two after the restoration of the Jahve-worship according to the law had been celebrated. But if it was not held in the first year, then it cannot have been held before the ruin of the kingdom of the ten tribes, in the sixth year of Hezekiah. In the third year of Hezekiah, Shalmaneser marched upon Samaria, and besieged the capital of the kingdom of the ten tribes. But during the occupation of that kingdom by the Assyrians, Hezekiah could not think of inviting its inhabitants to a passover in Jerusalem. He can have resolved upon that only after the Assyrians had again left the country, Samaria having been conquered, and the Israelites carried away. " But after an end had been thoroughly made of the kingdom of the house of Israel, Hezekiah might regard himself as the king of all Israel, and in this character might invite the remnant of the ten tribes, as his subjects, to the passover (cf. Jer. xl. 1); and he might cherish the hope, as the Israelitish people had been just smitten down by this last frightful catastrophe, that its remaining members would humble themselves under the mighty hand of God, which had been laid on them solemnly, and turning to Him, would comply with the invitation; while before the ruin of the Israelitish kingdom, in inviting the Israelites of the ten tribes, he would have been addressing the subjects of a foreign king" (Caspari, S. 125). And with this view, the statement, xxx. 10, that the messengers of Hezekiah were laughed at by the majority of the Israelites, in the land of Ephraim and Manasseh unto Zebulun, may be easily reconciled. u If we only look," as Caspari pertinently says in answer to this objection, 6i at the conduct of those who remained in Judea after the destruction of Jerusalem, and who soon afterwards fled to Egypt to Jeremiah (Jer. xlii. 44), we will understand how the majority of the people of the kingdom of the ten tribes, who remained behind after the deportation by Shalmaneser, could be hardened and blinded enough to laugh at and mock the messengers of Hezekiah."
But if Hezekiah formed the resolution of holding such a passover festival only after the destruction of the kingdom of
Israel, it may perhaps be asked why he did not take the matter into consideration early enough to allow of the festival being held at the legal time, i.e. in the first month? To this we certainly cannot give an assured answer, because, from the reasons given for the delay of the passover to the second month (ver. 3), we can only gather that, when the king consulted with the princes in the matter, there was no longer sufficient time to carry out the celebration in the manner proposed at the legal time. But it is quite possible that Hezekiah resolved to invite the remnant of the ten tribes to the next passover, only in the beginning of the year, when the Assyrians had withdrawn from the land, and that in the consultation about the matter the two circumstances mentioned in ver. 3 were decisive for the postponement of the feast to the second month. It became clear, on the one hand, that the whole priesthood was not yet sufficiently prepared for it; and on the other, that the summoning of the people could not be accomplished before the 14th Nisan, so as to allow of the feast being held in the way proposed at the legal time; and accordingly it was decided, in order to avoid the postponement of the matter for a whole year, to take advantage of the expedient suggested by the law, and to hold the feast in the second month. From ver. 14 and chap. xxxi. 1 we gather that at that time there were still standing in Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah and Benjamin, Mazzebotb, Asherim, Bamoth, and altars; consequently, that the Baal-worship had not yet been extirpated. The continuance of the Baal-worship, and that on the high places in Jerusalem and Judah, until the sixth or seventh year of Hezekiah's reign, will not much astonish us, if we consider that even before Ahaz the most pious kings had not succeeded in quite suppressing worship on the high places on the part of the people. The reopening of the temple, and of the Jahve-worship in it, Hezekiah might undertake and carry out in the beginning of his reign, because he had all those of the people who were well inclined upon his side. But it was otherwise with the altars on the high places, to which the people from ancient times had been firmly attached. These could not be immediately destroyed, and may have been again restored here and there after they had been destroyed, even in the corners of the capital. Many Levitic priests had, to a certainty, taken part in this worship on high places, since, as a rule, it was not heathen idols, but Jahve, to whom sacrifice was offered upon the high places, though it was done in an illegal way. Such Levitic priests of the high places could not, even if they had not practised idolatry, straightway take part in a passover to be celebrated to Jahve according to the precepts of the law. They must first sanctify themselves by abandoning the worship on the high places, and earnestly turning to the Lord and to His law. Now, if the passover was to be a general one, the time necessary for this sanctification of themselves must be granted to these priests. For the sanctification of these priests, and for the invitation of all Israel to the festival, the time up to the fourteenth of the second month was sufficient, and the king's proposal was consequently approved of by the whole assembly. — Ver. 5. They established the matter ("ifj «T?J£, Vulg. rightly, according to the sense, decreveimnt), to make proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beersheba to Dan (cf. Judg. xx. 1), that they should come to keep the passover. 2h? Sv *3, for not in multitude had they celebrated it, as it is written. These words were interpreted as early as by Rashi thus: they had not celebrated it for a long time according to the precepts of the law, and were referred to the time of the division of the kingdom. But to this Berth, has rightly objected that the use of 2"v of time is unusual, and has correctly referred the words to the Israelites: they had not celebrated it in multitude, i.e. in the assembly of the whole people, as the law required. The words consequently tell us nothing as to the length of time during which it had not been celebrated in multitude: as to that, see ver. 26. Still less does it follow from the words that under Hezekiah, after the restoration of the temple worship, the passover had not been yearly held. — Ver. 6. " The runners (whether soldiers of the royal body-guard, cf. xii. 10, or other royal couriers, as Esth. iii. 13, 15, cannot be determined) went with letters from the hand of the king,... and according to the commandment of the king to say." To the written invitation of the king and his princes they were to add words of exhortation: u Turn again to Jahve,... that He may return (turn Himself) to the remnant which remains to you from the hand of the kings of Assyria," i.e. of Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser. — Ver. 7. Be not like your fathers, your brethren, i.e. those carried away by Tiglath and Shalmaneser. On HB&7 D3W cf. xxix. 8. — Ver. 8. Be not stiff-necked: cf. 2 Kings xvii. 14. u Give the hand to the Lord," i.e. here, not submit yourselves, as 1 Chron. xxix. 24, construed with rinn; it denotes the giving of the hand as a pledge of fidelity, as in 2 Kings x. 15, Ezra x. 19, Ezek. xvii. 18. — Yer. 9. If ye return to the Lord, your brethren and your sons (who are in exile) shall be for mercy, i.e. shall find mercy of them who carried them away, and for returning, i.e, and they shall return into this land. 'W J^n ^ cf. Ex. xxxiv. 6. — Ver. 10. The couriers went about from city to city in the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, even unto Zebulun; but the people laughed to scorn and mocked at the summons to return, and the invitation to the passover festival. The words " from city to city" are not inconsistent with the view that the kingdom of Israel had already been ruined. The Assyrians had not blotted out all the cities from the face of the land, nor carried away every one of the inhabitants to the last man, but had been satisfied with the capture of the fortresses and their partial or complete demolition, and carried only the flower of the inhabitants away. No doubt also many had saved themselves from deportation by flight to inaccessible places, who then settled again and built in the cities and villages which had not been completely destroyed, or perhaps had been completely spared, after the enemy had withdrawn. From the statement, moreover, that the couriers passed through the land of Ephraim and Manasseh unto Zebulun, no proof can be derived that the messengers did not touch upon the domain of the tribes led away captive by Tiglath-pileser (Naphtali and the trans- Jordanic land), but only visited those districts of the country which formed the kingdom of Israel as it continued to exist after Tiglath-pileser. If that were so, it would follow that the kingdom had not then been destroyed. But the enumeration is not complete, as is manifest from the fact that, according to vers. 11 and 18, men of the tribes of Asher and Issachar came to Jerusalem in compliance with the invitation; and the domain of Asher extended to the northern frontier of Canaan. If we further take it into consideration, that, according to the resolution of the king and his princes, all Israel, from Beersheba on the southern frontier to Dan on the northern, were to be invited, it is not to be doubted that the couriers went through the whole land. — Ver. 12. Also upon Judah came the hand of God, to give them one heart, to do... The phrase 3 nnsn rWP T has usually a punitive signification (cf. Ex. ix. 3; Deut. ii. 15, etc.), but here it is the helping hand of God. God wrought powerfully upon Judah to make them of one mind. inn* inizi as in xxix. 15.
assembly of the people at Jerusalem to celebrate the feast became a great congregation. — Ver. 14. Before the slaying of the passover, in order to purify and sanctify the city for the feast, they removed the (illegal) altars and places for offering incense which had been erected under Ahaz (xxviii. 24), and threw them into the Kidron (xxix. 16). nntppp is here a substantive: places for incense-offerings (cf. Ew. § 160, e\ and denotes altars intended for the offering of the JTTbp. — Ver. 15. When they slaughtered the passover on the 14th, the Levites and priests also were ashamed, i.e. had sanctified themselves under the influence of a feeling of shame, and offered the sacrifice in the house of the Lord; i.e. they performed the sacrificial functions incumbent upon them at the passover in the temple, as is stated more in detail in ver. 16. The clause 'M D^i]3D1 is a circumstantial clause, and the statement points back to ver. 3. The mention of Levites along with the priests here is worthy of remark, since in xxix. 34 it is said that at the celebration of the dedication of the temple the Levites had sanctified themselves more zealously than the priests. But these two statements do not contradict each other. In chap. xxix. 34 it is the Levites and priests then present in or dwelling in Jerusalem who are spoken of; here, on the contrary, it is the priests and the Levites of the whole kingdom of Judah. Even though, at the former period, the Levites were more zealous in sanctifying themselves for the dedication of the temple, yet there must certainly have been many Levites in Judah, who, like many of the priests, did not immediately purify themselves from their defilement by the worship in the high places, and were only impelled and driven to sanctify themselves for the service of the Lord by the zeal of the people who had come to Jerusalem to hold the passover. — Ver. 16. Standing in their place, according to their right, i.e. according to the prescribed arrangement (see on 1 Chron. vi. 17), the priests sprinkled the blood (of the paschal lambs) from the hand of the Levites, they handing it to them. This was not the rule: in the case of the paschal lamb, the father of the family who slew the lamb had to hand the blood to the priest, that it might be sprinkled upon the altar; here the Levites did it for the reasons given in ver. 17. Because many in the assembly had not sanctified themselves, the Levites presided over the slaying of the paschal lambs for every one who was unclean, to sanctify (the lambs) to the Lord (see also on xxxv. 6, 11). J12n, stat. constr. before the noun with a preposition, stands as neuter substantively: there was a multitude in the assembly who... T\2i_ in ver. 18 is to be taken in a similar manner, not as an adverb (Berth.). &n$9? ri?"1 '1:1 is in apposition to Dyn JVSfJDj a multitude of people, viz.: Many of Ephraim... had not purified themselves, but ate the passover in an illegal fashion, not according to the precept (cf. Num. ix. 6). This clause explains how it happened that the Levites presided at the slaying of the passover for those who had not sanctified themselves, i.e. they caught the blood and gave it to the priests. Had this been done by persons levitically unclean, the expiatory sacrificial blood would have been defiled. The eating of the paschal lamb or the participation in the passover meal was indeed allowed only to the clean; but yet it was not so holy an act, i.e. did not bring the people into such immediate contact with God, who was present at His altar, that those who were not clean might not, under some circumstances, be admitted to it. Here it was allowed, for Hezekiah had prayed for them that God might forgive the transgression of the law. — Ver. 18 ends, according to the Masoretic verse-division, with the preposition "W2; but that division seems merely to have arisen from ignorance of the construction?2\} tal?"?^ of the fact that *JJf3 stands before a relative sentence without 'HSfc}, like?K in 1 Chron. xv. 12, and is certainly wrong. If we separate *W2t from what follows, we must, with Aben Ezra, supply n?x? and make pn (ver. 19) refer to Hezekiah, both being equally inadmissible. Rightly, therefore, the LXX., Vulg., and also Kimchi, with the majority of commentators, have given up this division of the verses as incorrect, and connected the words in this way: May the good Jahve atone, i.e. forgive every one who has fixed his heart (cf. xii. 14) to seek God, Jahve, the God of his fathers, but not in accordance with the purity of the sanctuary. This intercession of Hezekiah's is worthy of remark, not only because it expresses the conviction that upright seeking of the Lord, which proceeds from the heart, is to be more highly estimated than strict observance of the letter of the law, but also because Hezekiah presumes that those who had come out of Ephraim, etc., to the passover had fixed their heart to seek Jahve, the God of their fathers, but had not been in a position to comply with the precept of the law, i.e. to purify themselves up to the day appointed for the passover. — Ver. 20. God heard this intercession, and healed the people. NB"}, sanare, is not to be explained by supposing, with Bertheau, that first sickness, and then even death, were to be expected as the results of transgression of the law, according to Lev. xv. 31, and that the people might be already regarded as sick, as being on the point of becoming so. The use of the word is explained by the fact that sin was regarded as a spiritual disease, so that NQ1 is to be understood of healing the soul (as Ps. xli. 5), or the transgression (Hos. xiv. 5; Jer. iii. 22). — Ver. 21. And the Israelites that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness; and the Levites and priests praised the Lord day by day, singing to the Lord niiT1? fy r,?^, u with instruments of power to the Lord," i.e. with which they ascribed power to the Lord; or, to express it more clearly, which they played to the praise of the power of the Lord. The stringed instruments played by the Levites, and the trumpets blown by the priests, to accompany the psalm-singing, are meant. The singing of praise in connection with the sacrificial service took place on the seventh day of the feast. — Ver. 22. Hezekiah spoke to the heart of all the Levites, i.e. spoke encouraging words of acknowledgment to all the Levites, u who showed good understanding in regard to Jahve," i.e. not qui erant rerum divinarum peritiores aliosque instruere poterant, but, as Clericus has already said, those who had distinguished themselves by intelligent playing to the honour of the Lord. " And they ate" — not merely the Levites and priests, but all who took part in the festival — the festal sacrifices, seven days. The expression IgtefPTlK 73K? to hold the festal sacrificial meal, is formed after riDarrriK ^jk, to eat the passover = the passover meal. This we gather from the following participial clause, a offering peace-offerings," of which the sacrificial meals were prepared. D^iriTp^^ and acknowledged the Lord, the God of their fathers, minn denotes here neither " to make confession of sin," nor " to approach with thank-offerings" (Berth.), but simply to acknowledge the Lord with heart and mouth, word and deed, or by prayer, praise, thanks, and offering of sacrifice.