Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

We must take the words in this general sense, and supply neither a preterite nor a future in ver. 3, neither f iterant nor eruntj but must express the first clause by the present in English:

1 As Ramb. therefore rightly remarks, " Vatem videri consulto abstinuisse a determinatione temporis, ut vela sensui quam amplissime panderentur, vcrbaque omnibus lemporum periodis adplicari posseut, in quibus criteria hie rccemita adpareaut"

u Many days are for Israel (i.e. Israel lives many days) without the true God, and without teaching priests, and without law." D^SH D^J is not accus. of time (Berth.), but the subject of the sentence; and 'FPU &6? is not subject — u during many days there was to the people Israel no true God" (Berth.) — but predicate, while? expresses the condition into which anything comes, and fc6 forms part of the following noun: Days for Israel for having not a true God. *6? differs from K?3, "without," just as? differs from 3; the latter expressing the being in a condition, the former the coming into it. On ri£K WK, cf. Jer. x. 10. nniD pb is not to be limited to the high priest, for it refers to the priests in general, whose office it was to teach the people law and justice (Lev. x. 10; Deut. xxxiii. 10). The accent is upon the predicates niDK and rnto. Israel had indeed Elohim, but not the true God, and also priests, but not priests who attended to their office, who watched over the fulfilment of the law; and so they had no "Tji^ notwithstanding the book of the law composed by Moses. — Ver. 5. " And in these times is no peace to those going out or to those coming in." Free peaceful intercommunication is interfered with (cf. Judg. v. 6, vi. 2), but great terrors upon all inhabitants of the lands (ni^NH are, according to the usage of the chronicler, the various districts of the land of Israel). — Ver. 6. "And one people is dashed in pieces by the other, and one city by the other; for God confounds them by all manner of adversity." BDH denotes confusion, which God brings about in order to destroy His enemies (Ex. xiv. 24; Josh. x. 10; Judg. iv. 15). Days when they were without the true God, without teaching prophets, and without law, Israel had already experienced in the times of defection after Joshua (cf. Judg. ii. 11 ff.), but will experience them in the future still oftener and more enduringly under the idolatrous kings in the Assyrian and Babylonian exile, and still even now in its dispersion among all nations. That this saying refers to the future is also suggested by the fact that Hosea (chap. iii. and iv.) utters, with a manifest reference to ver. 3 of our speech, a threat that the ten tribes will be brought into a similar condition (cf. Hos. ix. 3, 4); and even Moses proclaimed to the people that the punishment of defection from the Lord would be dispersion among the heathen, where Israel would be compelled to serve idols of wood and stone (Deut. iv. 27 ff., xxviii. 36, 64), i.e. would be without the true God. That Israel would, in such oppression, turn to its God, would seek Him, and that the Lord would be found of them, is a thought also expressed by Moses, the truth of which Israel had not only had repeated experience of during the time of the judges, but also would again often experience in the future (cf. Hos. iii. 5; Jer. xxxi. 1; Ezek. xxxvi. 24 ff*.; Rom. xi. 25 ff.). frl3P3 refers back to Deut. iv. 30; the expression in ver. Ab is founded upon Deut. iv. 29 (cf. Isa. Iv. 6). — Of the oppression in the times of defection portrayed in ver. 5 f., Israel had also had in the time of the judges repeated experience (cf. Judg. v. 6), most of all under the Midianite yoke (Judg. vi. 2); but such times often returned, as the employment of the very words of the first hemistich of ver. 5 in Zech. viii. 10, in reference to the events of the postexilic time, shows; and not only the prophet Amos (iii. 9) sees nim_ rriEfinpj great confusions, where all is in an indistinguishable whirl in the Samaria of his time, but they repeated themselves at all times when the defection prevailed, and godlessness degenerated into revolution and civil war. Azariah portrays the terrors of such times in strong colours (ver. 6): " Dashed to pieces is people by people, and city by city." The war of the tribes of Israel against Benjamin (Judg. xx. f.), and the struggle of the Gileadites under Jephthah with Ephraim (Judg. xii. 4 ff.), were civil wars; but they were only mild preludes of the helium omnium contra omnes depicted by Azariah, which only commenced with the dissolution of both kingdoms, and was announced by the later prophets as the beginning of the judgment upon rebellious Israel (e.g. Isa. ix. 17-20), and upon all peoples and kingdoms hostile to God (Zech. xiv. 13; Matt. xxiv. 7). With tyrjiwj »3 DDtpH cf. n^ '* IWVTD, Zech. xiv. 13. To this portrayal of the dread results of defection from the Lord, Azariah adds (ver. 7) the exhortation, u Be ye strong (vigorous), and show yourselves not slack, languid" (cf. Zeph. iii. 16; Neh. vi. 9); i.e., in this connection, proceed courageously and vigorously to keep yourselves true to the Lord, to exterminate all idolatry; then you shall obtain a great reward: cf. on these words, Jer. xxxi. 16.

Vers. 8-18. Completion of the reform in worship, and the renewal of the covenant. — Ver. 8. The speech and prophecy of the prophet strengthened the king to carry out the work he had begun, viz. the extirpation of idolatry from the whole land. In ver. 8 the words Ns33n yjfi are surprising, not only because the prophet is called in ver. 1, not Oded, but Azariah the son of Oded, but also on account of the preceding ninain in the absolute state, which cannot stand, without more ado, for the stat. constr. HW33 (cf. ix. 29). The view of Cler. and E\v., that by an orthographical error |2 ^^y has been dropped out, does not remove the difficulty, for it leaves the stat. absoL nx^n unexplained. This is also the case with the attempt to explain the name Oded in ver. 8 by transposing the wTords Azariah ben Oded, ver. 1, so as to obtain Oded ben Azariah (Movers); and there seems to be no other solution of the difficulty than to strike out the w^ords Oded the prophet from the text as a gloss which has crept into it (Berth.), or to suppose that there is a considerable hiatus in the text caused by the dropping out of the words ja V^S "W *1^-1 PK^C corresponds to Wn. Asa complied with the exhortation, and removed ("OX!!l, as in 1 Kings xv. 12) all abominations (idols) from the whole land, and from the cities which he had taken from Mount Ephraim: these are the cities which Asa's father Abijah had conquered, xiii. 19. u And he renewed the altar before the porch," i.e. the altar of burnt-offering, which might stand in need of repairs sixty years after the building of the temple. The Vulg. is incorrect in translating dedicavit, and Berth, in supposing that the renovation refers only to a purification of it from defilement by idolatry. KH.n is everywhere to renew, repair, restaurare; cf. xxiv. 4. — But in order to give internal stability to the reform he had begun, Asa prepared a great sacrificial festival, to which he invited the people out of all the kingdom, and induced them to renew the covenant with the Lord. Ver. 9. He gathered together the whole of Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers out of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon, who dwelt among them. Strangers, i.e. Israelites from the ten tribes, had come over as early as Rehoboam's reign to the kingdom of Judah (xi. 16); these immigrations increased under Asa when it was seen that Jahve was with him, and had given him a great victory over the Cushites. It is surprising that Simeon should be mentioned among the tribes from which Israelites w* nt over to the kingdom of Judah, since Simeon had received his heritage in the southern district of the tribal domain of Judah, so that at the division of the kingdom it could not well separate itself from phecy (that) of Oded," but answers the question why Oded is used in ver. 8 instead of Azarjahu ben Oded by various conjectures, none of which can be looked upon as probable.

Judah, and join with the tribes who had revolted from the house of David. The grouping together of Simeon, Ephraim, and Manasseh, both in our verse and in xxxiv. 6, can consequently scarcely be otherwise explained than by the supposition, either that a part of the Simeonites had in course of time emigrated from the cities assigned to them under Joshua into districts in the northern kingdom (Berth.), or that the Simeonites, though politically united with Juclah, yet in religious matters were not so, but abstained from taking part in the Jahve-worship in Jerusalem, and had set up in Beersheba a worship of their own similar to that in Bethel and Dan. In such a case, the more earnest and thoughtful people from Simeon, as wrell as from Ephraim and Manasseh, may have gone to Jerusalem to the sacrificial festival prepared by Asa. In favour of this last supposition we may adduce the fact that the prophet Amos, chap. v. 5, iv. 4, viii. 14, mentions Beersheba, along with Bethel and Gilgal, as a place to which pilgrimages were made by the idolatrous Israelites. — Ver. 10 f. At this festival, which was held on the third month of the fifteenth year of Asa's reign, they offered of the booty, i.e. of the cattle captured in the war against the Cushites (xiv. 14), 700 oxen and 7000 sheep. HP3J1??$n~\o defines the *n3W more closely: they sacrificed, viz. from the booty they offered. From this it seems to follow that the sacrificial festival was held soon after the return from the war against the Cushites. The attack of the Cushite Zerah upon Judah can only have occurred in the eleventh year of Asa, according to xiii. 23; but it is not stated how long the war lasted, nor when Asa returned to Jerusalem (xiv. 14) after conquering the enemy and plundering the towns of the south land. But Asa may quite well have remained longer in the south after the Cushites had been driven back, in order again firmly to establish his rule there; and on his return to Jerusalem, in consequence of the exhortation of the prophet Azariah, may have straightway determined to hold a sacrificial festival at which the whole people should renew the covenant with the Lord, and have set apart and reserved a portion of the captured cattle for this purpose. — Ver. 12. And they entered into the covenant, i.e. they renewed the covenant, bound themselves by a promise on oath (W3K^ ver. 14) to hold the covenant, viz. to worship Jalive the God of the fathers with their whole heart and soul; cf. Deut. iv. 29. With rnaa Kto, cf. Jer. xxxiv. 10.— Ver. 13 f. To attest the sincerity of their return to the Lord, they determined at the same time to punish defection from Jalive on the part of any one, without respect to age or sex, with death, according to the command in Deut. xvii. 2-6. Hlilv BHfl &6, not to worship Jahve, is substantially the same as to serve other gods, Deut. xvii. 3. This they swore aloud and solemnly, n>,;nrin, with joyful shouting and the sound of trumpets and horns. — Ver. 15. This return to the Lord brought joy to all Judah, i.e. to the whole kingdom, because they had sworn with all their heart, and sought the Lord Dii^"}"?D3, with perfect willingness and alacrity. Therefore Jahve was found of them, and gave them rest round about. — In vers. 16-18, in conclusion, everything which still remained to be said of Asa's efforts to promote the Jahve-worship is gathered up. Even the queen-mother Maachah was deposed by him from the dignity of ruler because she had made herself an image of Asherah; yet he did not succeed in wholly removing the altars on the high places from the land, etc. These statements are also to be found in 1 Kings xv. 13-16, and are commented upon at that place. Only in the Chronicle we have KDN EN instead of iftN (Kings), because there Maachah had just been named (ver. 10); and to the statement as to the abolition of idolatry, pT, crushed, is added, and in ver. 17 **nfe»»; while, on the other hand, after aW, mrp DV is omitted, as not being necessary to the expression of the meaning.

Ver. 19 is different from 1 Kings xv. 16. In the latter passage it is said: war was between Asa and Baasha the king of Israel DiTD*~33j i.e. so long as both reigned contemporaneously; while in the Chronicle it is said: war was not until the thirty-fifth year of Asa's reign. This discrepancy is partly got rid of by taking nftrvn in the book of Kings to denote the latent hostility or inimical attitude of the two kingdoms towards each other, and in the Chronicle to denote a war openly declared. The date, until the thirty-fifth year, causes a greater difficulty; but this has been explained in chap. xvi. 1 by the supposition that in the thirty-sixth year of Asa's reign war broke out between Asa and Baasha, when the meaning of our 16th verse would be: It did not come to war with Baasha until the thirty-sixth year of Asa's rule. For further remarks on this, see on xvi. 1.

Chap. xvi. War with Baasha, and the weakness of Asa's faith. TJie end of his reign. — Vers. 1-6. Baasha's invasion of Judah, and Asa's prayer for help to the king of Syria. The statement, " In the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha the king of Israel came up against Judah," is inaccurate, or rather cannot possibly be correct; for, according to 1 Kings xvi. 8, 10, Baaslia died in the twenty-sixth year of Asa's reign, and his successor Elah was murdered by Zimri in the second year of his reign, i.e. in the twenty-seventh year of Asa. The older commentators, for the most part, accepted the conjecture that the thirty-fifth year (in xv. 19) is to be reckoned from the commencement of the kingdom of Judah; and consequently, since Asa became king in the twentieth year of the kingdom of Judah, that Baasha's invasion occurred in the sixteenth year of his reign, and that the land had enjoyed peace till his fifteenth year; cf. Ramb. ad h. I.; des Vignoles, Chronol. i. p. 299. This is in substance correct; but the statement, " in the thirty -sixth year of Asa's kingship," cannot be reconciled with it. For even if we suppose that the author of the Chronicle derived his information from an authority which reckoned from the rise of the kingdom of Judah, yet it could not have been said on that authority, NDX ^r??f« This only the author of the Chronicle can have written; but then he cannot also have taken over the statement, u in the thirty-sixth year," unaltered from his authority into his book. There remains therefore no alternative but to regard the text as erroneous, — the letters? (30) and * (10), which are somewhat similar in the ancient Hebrew characters, having been interchanged by a copyist; and hence the numbers 35 and 36 have arisen out of the original 15 and 16. By this alteration all difficulties are removed, and all the statements of the Chronicle as to Asa's reign are harmonized. During the first ten years there was peace (xiii. 23); thereafter, in the eleventh year, the inroad of the Cushites; and after the victory over them there was the continuation of the Cultus reform, and rest until the fifteenth year, in which the renewal of the covenant took place (xv. 19, cf. with ver. 10); and in the sixteenth year the war with Baasha aro.^e.1 The account of this war in vers. 1-6 agrees with that in 1 Kings xv. 17-22 almost literally, and has been commented upon in the remarks on 1 Kings xv. In ver. 2 the author of the Chronicle has mentioned only the main things. Abel-Maim, i.e. Abel in the Water (ver. 4), is only another name for Abel-Beth- Maachah (Kings); see on 2 Sam. xx. 14. In the same verse

1 Movers, S. 255 ff., and Then, on 1 Kings xv., launch out into arbitrary hypotheses, founded in both cases upon the erroneous presumption that the author of the Chronicle copied our canonical books of Kings — they being his authority — partly misunderstanding and partly altering them.

V^9- *!? J"1^?*?"''? n$\ is surprising, a and all magazines (or stores) of the cities of Naphtali," instead of P.^3 ^ tf"l*3"W HK 7R&3, "all Kinneroth, together with all the land of Naphtali'' (Kings). Then, and Berth, think ny ntt3DD has arisen out of pK and nV03 by a misconception of the reading; while Gesen., Dietr. in Lex, sub voce 0lT|3, conjecture that in 1 Kings xv. 20 rri:3pp should be read instead of rrtl|3. Should the difference actually be the result only of a misconception, then the latter conjecture would have much more in its favour than the first. But it is a more probable solution of the difficulty that the text of the Chronicle is a translation of the unusual and, especially on account of the rJ P&T^?V, scarcely intelligible nfa33~73. nVl33 is the designation of the very fertile district on the west side of the Sea of Kinnereth, i.e. Gennesaret, after which a city also was called rnjfi (see on Josh. xix. 35), and which, on account of its fertility, might be called the granary of the tribal domain of Naphtali. But the smiting of a district can only be a devastation of it, — a plundering and destruction of its produce, both in stores and elsewhere. With this idea the author of the Chronicle, instead of the district Kinnereth, the name of which had perhaps become obsolete in his time, speaks of the rri:3DD7 the magazines or stores, of the cities of Naphtali. In ver. 5, too, we cannot hold the addition ifi3N?£"fiK DSE^ u he caused his work to rest," as Berth, does, for an interpretation of the original reading, FttHTa 3B3 (Kings), it having become illegible: it is rather a free rendering of the thought that Baasha abandoned his attempt upon Judah. — Ver. 6. In regard to the building of Mizpah, it is casually remarked in Jer. xli. 9 that Asa had there built a cistern.

Vers. 7-10. The rebuke of the prophet Hanani, and Asa's crime. — Ver. 7. The prophet Hanani is met with only here. Jehu, the son of Hanani, who announced to Baasha the ruin of his house (1 Kings xvi. 1), and who reappears under Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. xix. 2), was without doubt his son. Hanani said to King Asa, a Because thou hast relied on the king of Aram, and not upon Jahve thy God, therefore is the host of the king of Aram escaped out of thy hand." Berth, has correctly given the meaning thus: "that Asa, if he had relied upon God, would have conquered not only the host of Baasha, but also the host of the king of Damascus, if he had, as was to be feared, in accordance with his league with Baasha (ver. 3), in common with Israel, made an attack upon the kingdom of Judah." To confirm this statement, the prophet points to the victory over the great army of the Cushites, which Asa had won by his trust in God the Lord. With the Cushites Hanani names also DW, Libyans (cf. xii. 3), and besides 23"!? the war-chariots, also WP&} horsemen, in order to portray the enemy rhetorically, while in the historical narrative only the immense number of warriors and the multitude of the chariots is spoken of. — Ver. 9. " For Jahve, His eyes run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong with those whose heart is devoted to Him;" z.e., for Jahve, who looks forth over all the earth, uses every opportunity wonderfully to succour those who are piously devoted to Him. &y PiW'?, to help mightily, as in 1 Chron. xi. 10. IvK D?£> Dinp~DV is a relative sentence without the relative "lBW with By; cf. 1 Chron. xv. 12. " Thou hast done foolishly, therefore," scil. because thou hast set thy trust upon men instead of upon Jahve, " for from henceforth there shall be wars to thee " (thou shalt have war). In these words the prophet does not announce to Asa definite wars, but only expresses the general idea that Asa by his godless policy would bring only wars (HibnpD in indefinite universality), not peace, to the kingdom. History confirms the truth of this announcement, although we have no record of any other wars which broke out under Asa. — Ver. 10. This sharp speech so angered the king, that he caused the seer to be set in the stockhouse. rDSnsn n^, properly, house of stocks. n?snft, twisting, is an instrument of torture, a stock, by which the body was forced into an unnatural twisted position, the victim perhaps being bent double, with the hands and feet fastened together: cf. Jer. xx. 2, xxix. 26; and Acts xvi. 24, eftaXev ek ttjv cj>v\a- wrath against him (scil. he did it) because of this thing, and Asa crushed some of the people at this time." Clearly Hanani's speech, and still more Asa's harsh treatment of the seer, caused great discontent among the people, at least in the upper classes, so that the king felt himself compelled to use force against them.)T], to break or crush, is frequently used along with PW (Deut. xxviii. 33; 1 Sam. xii. 3, etc.), and signifies to suppress with violence. Asa had indeed well deserved the censure, Thou hast dealt foolishly. His folly consisted in this, that in order to get help against Baasha's attack, he had had recourse to a means which must become dangerous to him and to his kingdom; for it was not difficult to foresee that the Syrian king Benhadad would turn the superiority to Israel which he had gained against Judah itself. But in order to estimate rightly Asa's conduct, we must consider that it was perhaps an easier thing, in human estimation, to conquer the innumerable multitudes of the Ethiopian hordes than the united forces of the kings of Israel and Syria; and that, notwithstanding the victory over the Ethiopians, yet Asa's army may have been very considerably weakened by that war. But these circumstances are not sufficient to justify Asa. Since he had so manifestly had the help of the Lord in the war against the Cushites, it was at bottom mainly weakness of faith, or want of full trust in the omnipotence of the Lord, which caused him to seek the help of the enemy of God's people, the king of Syria, instead of that of the Almighty God, and to make flesh his arm; and for this he was justly censured by the prophet.

Vers. 11-14. The end of Asds reign; cf. 1 Kings xv. 23, 24. — On ver. 11, cf. the Introduction. — Ver. 12. In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa became diseased in his feet, and that in a high degree. The words v?n Tvyrp'iy are a circumstantial clause: to a high degree was his sickness. a And also in his sickness (as in the war against Baasha) he sought not Jahve, but turned to the physicians." VFft is primarily construed with the accus., as usually in connection with iTirv or QTibx, to seek God, to come before Him with prayer and supplication; then with 3, as usually of an oracle, or seeking help of idols (cf. 1 Sam. xxviii. 7; 2 Kings i. 2 ff.; 1 Chron. x. 14), and so here of superstitious trust in the physicians. Consequently it is not the mere inquiring of the physicians which is here censured, but only the godless manner in which Asa trusted in the physicians. — Ver. 14. The Chronicle gives a more exact account of Asa's burial than 1 Kings xv. 24. He was buried in the city of David; not in the general tomb of the kings, however, but in a tomb which he had caused to be prepared for himself in that place. And they laid him upon the bed, which had been filled with spices (D^b3, see Ex. xxx. 23), and those of various kinds, mixed for an anointing mixture, prepared. E^T from |T, kind, species; D^fy et varia quidem. njpiD in Piel only here, properly spiced, from njr^ to spice, usually to compound an unguent of various spices, nnp"}^ the compounding of ointment; so also 1 Chron. ix. 30, where it is usually translated by unguent. J"1^?, work, manufacture, is a shortened terminus technicus for nj?n n'BW, manufacture of the ointment-compounder (cf. Ex. xxx. 25, 35), and the conjecture that nfpii has been dropped out of the text by mistake is unnecessary. " And they kindled for him a great, very great burning," cf. xxi. 19 and Jer. xxxiv. 5, whence we gather that the kindling of a burning, i.e. the burning of odorous spices, was customary at the burials of kings. Here it is only remarked that at Asa's funeral an extraordinary quantity of spices was burnt. A burning of the corpse, or of the bed or clothes of the dead, is not to be thought of here: the Israelites were in the habit of burying their dead, not of burning them. That occurred only in extraordinary circumstances, — as, for example, in the case of the bodies of Saul and his sons; see on 1 Sam. xxxi. 12. The kindling and burning of spices at the solemn funerals of persons of princely rank, on the other hand, occurred also among other nations, e.g. among the Romans; cf. Plinii hist. nat. xii. 18, and M. Geier, de luctu Hebr. c. 6.

Jehoshaphat laboured to strengthen the kingdom both within and without. Not only did he place soldiers in the fenced cities, and removed the high places and the Astartes, but sought also to diffuse the knowledge of the law among the people, and by building castles and the possession of a well-equipped army, firmly to establish his power (chap. xvii.). In the course of years he married into the family of Ahab king of Israel, and, while on a visit in Samaria, allowed himself to be persuaded by Ahab to enter upon a joint war against the Syrians at Ramoth in Gilead, in which he all but lost his life, while King Ahab was mortally wounded in the battle (chap, xviii.). Censured on his return to Jerusalem by the prophet Jehu for this alliance with the godless Ahab, he sought still more earnestly to lead back his people to Jahve, the God of their fathers, bestirring himself to bring the administration of justice into a form in accordance with the law of God, and establishing a supreme tribunal in Jerusalem (chap. xix.). Thereafter, when the Moabites and Ammonites, with the Edomites and other desert tribes, made an inroad into Judah, the Lord gave him a wonderful victory over these enemies. At a later time he yet again allied himself with the Israelitish kino; Ahaziah for the restoration of the commerce with Ophir; but the ships built for this purpose were broken in the harbour, so that the voyage was abandoned (chap. xx.). Of all these enterprises of Jelioshaphat, none are mentioned in the book of Kings except the campaign entered upon with Ahab against Ramoth in Gilead, which is found in the history of Ahab, 1 Kings xxii. 2-35. Jehoshaphat's reign itself is only characterized generally, but in such a way as to agree with the account in the Chronicle; and, in conclusion, the alliance with Ahaz for the purpose of making the voyage to Ophir is shortly narrated in 1 Kings xxii. 41-57, but in a form which differs considerably from that in which it is communicated in the Chronicle.

Chap. xvii. Jelioshaphat 's efforts to strengthen the Jchigdom, internally and externally. — Yer. 1, or rather the first half of this verse, belongs properly to the preceding chapter, since, when the son immediately follows the father on the throne, the successor is mentioned immediately: cf. ix. 31, xii. 16, xxiv. 27, xxvii. 9, etc. Here, however, the account of the accession to the throne is combined with a general remark on the reign of the successor, and therefore it is placed at the commencement of the account of the reign; while in the case of Asa (chap. xiii. 23) both come in immediately at the conclusion of the reign of his predecessor. Asa had shown himself weak against Israel, as he had sought help against Baasha's attack from the Syrians (xvi. 1 ff.), but it was otherwise with Jelioshaphat. He indeed put the fenced cities of his kingdom in a thoroughly good condition for defence, to protect his kingdom against hostile attacks from without (ver. 2); but he walked at the same time in the ways of the Lord, so that the Lord made his kingdom strong and mighty (vers. 3-5). This general characterization of his reign is in ver. 6 illustrated by facts: first by the communication of what Jelioshaphat did for the inner spiritual strengthening of the kingdom, by raising the standard of religion and morals among the people (vers. 6—11), and then by what he did for the external increase of his power (vers. 12-19).

Vers. 2-5. He placed forces (?)n) in all the fenced cities of Judah, and garrisons (ft*?*??, military posts; cf. 1 Chron. xi. 16) in the land of Judah, and in the cities of Ephraim, which his father Asa had taken; cf. xv. 8. God blessed these undertakings. Jahve was with him, because he walked in the ways of David his ancestor, the former ways, and sought not the Baals. The former ways of David are his ways in the earlier years of his reign, in contrast to the later years, in which his adultery with

Bathsheba (2 Sam. xi. ff.) and the sin of numbering the people (1 Chron. xxi.) fall. Dy^an are all false gods, in contrast to Jahve, the one God of Israel; and here the word designates not only the Baal-worship properly so called, but also the worship of Jahve by means of images, by which Jahve is brought clown to the level of the Baals; cf. Judg. ii. 11. The? before 0yV3 stands, according to the later usage, as a sign of the accusative. In the last clause of ver. 4, " and not after the doings of Israel" (of the ten tribes), SJjn, "he walked," is to be repeated. The doing of Israel is the worship of Jahve through the images of the golden calves, which the author of the Chronicle includes in the DvJJab c'"n. — Ver. 5. Therefore Jahve established the kingdom in his hand, i.e. under his rule; cf. 2 Kings xiv. 5. All Judah brought him presents. nmp? often used of tribute of subject peoples, e.g. in ver. 11 of the Philistines, cannot here have that signification; nor can it denote the regular imposts of subjects, for these are not called nnj»; but must denote voluntary gifts which his subjects brought him as a token of their reverence and love. The last clause, " and there was to him (he attained) riches and honour in abundance," which is repeated xviii. 1, recalls 1 Chron. xxix. 28, 2 Chron. i. 12, and signifies that Jehoshaphat, like his ancestors David and Solomon, was blessed for walking in the pious ways of these his forefathers.

Vers. 6-9. This blessing encouraged Jehoshaphat to extirpate from the land all idolatrous worship, and to teach the people the law of the Lord. 2? FD3, usually sensu malo, to be haughty, proud, cf. e.g. xxvi. 16, xxxii. 25; here sensu bono, of rising courage to advance in ways pleasing to God: and he removed the high places also, etc. liy points back to ver. 3: not only did he himself keep far from the Baals, but he removed, besides, all memorials of the Baal-worship from Judah. On T\)V2 and t^l^N, see on xiv. 2. — Ver. 7 ff. In the third year of his reign he sent five princes, i.e. laymen of high position, with nine Levites and two priests, into the cities of Judah, with the book of the law, to teach the law everywhere to the people, ^"ja is nom. prop.} like 1Dn~}3, 1 Kings iv. 10, "^"l?, 1 Kings iv. 9, and is not to be translated as an adjective, as in LXX. and Syr., partly on account of the ^ prcef.y and still more on account of the singular, for the plural ^n \)3 must be used when it is in apposition to *"&?. Nothing further is known of the men named; the designation of them as D*"HP suggests the idea that they were heads of families or fathers'-houses. ^riix lto? too (ver. 8), is one name. The u book of the law of Jahve " is the Pentateuch, not merely a collection of Mosaic laws, since in Jehoshaphat's time the Mosaic book of the law (the Pentateuch) had been long in existence. PlW1 'njD nDD signifies to 20 through the cities of Judah in different directions; DJB 1^, to teach among the people (not the people). The mission of these men is called by the older theologians a solemn ecclesiarum visitatio, quam Josapliat laudabili exemplo per universum regnum suum instituit, and they differ in opinion only as to the part played by the princes in it. Vitringa, de synagoga vet. p. 389, in agreement with Bashi, thinks that only the Levites and priests were deputed ut docerent; the princes, tit auctoritate imperioque suo populum erudiendum in officio continerent eumque de seria regis voluntate certiorem facerent; while others, e.g. Buddaeus, refer to ver. 9, ubi principes painter ac Levita? populum docuisse dicuntur, or believe with Grotius, docere et explicate legem non tantum sacerdotum erat et Levitarum.) sed omnium eruditorum. Both views contain elements of truth, and do not mutually exclude each other, but may be harmonized. We can hardly confine "1EP to religious teaching. The Mosaic law contains a number of merely civil precepts, as to which laymen learned in the law might impart instruction; and consequently the teaching probably consisted not merely in making the people acquainted with the contents of the law, but at the same time of direction and guidance in keeping the law, and generally in restoring and confirming the authority of the law among the people. In connection with this there were many abuses and illegalities which had to be broken down and removed; so that in this respect the task of the commission sent round the country by Jehoshaphat may be compared to a church inspection, if only we understand thereby not an inspection of churches in the Christian sense of the words, but an inspection of the religious and moral life of the communities of Israel under the old covenant.

Vers. 10 and 11. This attempt of Jehoshaphat brought him this blessing, that the terror of Jahve fell upon all the surrounding kingdoms; and not only did none of the neighbouring peoples venture to make war upon him, but also various tribes did homage to him by presents. Bamb. has already so understood the connection of these verses (erat hoc prccmium pietatis Josaphati, quod vicini satisque potentes hostes non auderent adcersus ipsum hiscere); while Berth, fails to apprehend it, saying that Jehoshaphat had time to care for the instruction of his people, because at that time the neighbouring peoples did not venture to undertake war against Judah. The words " terror of Jahve," cf. xiv. 13, xx. 29, and " all the kingdoms of the lands," cf. xii. 8, 1 Chron. xxix. 30, are expressions peculiar to the author of the Chronicle, which show that by these remarks he is preparing the way for a transition to a more detailed portrayal of Jehoshaphat's political power. D^^vQ'ip is subject, |£ partitive: some of the Philistines brought him presents (for nriJD see on ver. 5), " and silver a burden," i.e. in great quantity. N&£> does not signify tribute, vectigal argento (Vulg.), for the word has not that signification, but denotes burden, that which can be carried, as in N&D pH?, xx. 25. — &Wn"W or D*?"8?, xxvi. 7, and more usually MIS, xxi. 16, xxii. 1, are Arabian nomadic tribes (Bedawin), perhaps those whom Asa, after his victory over the Cushite Zerah, had brought under the kingdom of Judah, xiv. 14. These paid their tribute in small cattle, rams, and he-goats. (B*?*n, Gen. xxx. 35, xxxii. 15, Prov. xxx. 31.)

4.— Ver. 13. 'W nan roato is rightly translated by Luther, " und hatte viel Vorraths" (and had much store). »i?N?p denotes here, as in Ex. xxii. 7—10, property, that which has been gained by work or business. The signification, much work, opera magna (Vulg., Cler., etc.), as also Bertheau's translation, u the works for equipping and provisioning the fortresses," correspond neither to the context nor to the parallel (synonymous) second member of the verse. The work and trouble necessary to equip the cities of Judah does not correspond to " the valiant warriors in Jerusalem;" the only parallel is the goods and property which were in these cities, the provision of victuals and war material there stored up. — Vers. 14-19. The men fit for war passed in review according to their fathers'-houses. The male population of Judah fell into three divisions, that of Benjamin into two. The prince Adnah held the first place among the generals, with 300,000 men of

Judah. IT?$, at his hand, i.e. with and under him, Jehohanan had the command of 280,000 men, and Amasiah over 200,000. "ib'n is a contraction for Q^N *&. For what special reason it is so honourably recorded of Amasiah that he had willingly offered himself to the Lord (cf. for ^Jin, Judg. v. 9) lias not been communicated.— Ver. 17 f. The Benjamites fell into two detachments: archers with shields (cf. 1 Chron. viii. 40) 200,000 men, under the chief command of Eliada, and u equipped of the army," i.e. not heavy armed (Berth.), but provided with the usual weapons, sword, spear, and shield (cf. 1 Chron. xii. 24), 180,000 under the command of Jehozabad. According to this statement, Judah had 780,000 warriors capable of bearing arms. These numbers are clearly too large, and bear no proportion to th^ result of the numbering of the people capable of bearing arms under David, when there were in Judah only 500,000 or 470,000 men (ef. 1 Chron. xxi. 5 with 2 Sam. xxiv. 5); yet the sums of the single divisions appear duly proportioned, — a fact which renders it more difficult to believe that these exaggerated numbers are the result of orthographical errors. — Ver. 19. These were serving the king. n?K refers not to the above-mentioned men capable of bearing arms, for rnB> is not used of service in war, but to the commanders whom he had placed in the fortified cities of all Judah, " in which probably bodies of the above-mentioned troops lay as garrisons" (Berth.).

Chap, xviii. Jehoshaphat s marriage alliance with Ahab, and his campaign ivith Ahab against the Syrians at Rarnoth in Gilead. — Ver. 1. Jehoshaphat came into connection by marriage with Ahab through his son Joram taking Athaliah, a daughter of Ahab, to wife (xxi. 6); an event which did not take place on the visit made by Jehoshaphat to Ahab in his palace at Samaria, and recorded in ver. 2, but which had preceded that by about nine years. That visit falls in the beginning of the year in which Ahab was mortally wounded at Ramoth, and died, i.e. the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat's reign. But at that time Ahaziah, the son of Joram and Athaliah, was already from eight to nine years old, since thirteen years later he became king at the age of twenty-two; 2 Kings viii. 26, cf. with the chron ol. table to 1 Kings xii. The marriage connection is mentioned in order to account for Jehoshaphat's visit to Samaria (ver. 2), and his alliance with Ahab in the war against the Syrians; but it is also introduced by a reference to Jehoshaphat's riches and his royal splendour, repeated from chap. xvii. 5. In the opinion of many commentators, this is stated to account for Ahab's willingness to connect his family by marriage with that of Jehoshaphat. This opinion might be tenable were it Ahab's entering upon a marriage connection with Jehoshaphat which is spoken of; but for Jehoshaphat, of whom it is related that he entered into a marriage connection with Ahab, his own great wealth could not be a motive for his action in that matter. If we consider, first, that this marriage connection was very hurtful to the kingdom of Judah and the royal house of David, since Athaliah not only introduced the Phoenician idolatry into the kingdom, but also at the death of Ahaziah extirpated all the royal seed of the house of David, only the infant Joash of all the royal children being saved by the princess, a sister of Ahaziah, who was married to the high priest Jehoiada (xxii. 10—12); and, second, that Jehoshaphat was sharply censured by the prophet for his alliance with the criminal Ahab (xix. 2 ff.), and had, moreover, all but forfeited his life in the war (xviii. 34 f.), — we see that the author of the Chronicle can only have regarded the marriage connection between Jehoshaphat and Ahab as a mistake. By introducing this account of it by a second reference to Jehoshaphat's riches and power, he must therefore have intended to hint that Jehoshaphat had no need to enter into this relationship with the idolatrous house of Ahab, but had acted very inconsiderately in doing so. Schmidt has correctly stated the contents of the verse thus: Josaphatus cetera dives et gloriosus infelicem adjinitatem cum Achabo, rege Israelis, contrahit. With which side the proposals for thus connecting the two royal houses originated we are not anywhere informed. Even if the conjecture of Ramb., that Ahab proposed it to Jehoshaphat, be not well founded, yet so much is beyond doubt, namely, that Ahab not only desired the alliance, but also promoted it by every means in his power, since it must have been of great importance to him to gain in Jehoshaphat a strong ally against the hostile pressure of the Syrians. Jehoshaphat probably entered upon the alliance bono amnio et spe firmando? inter duo regna pads (Ramb.), without much thought of the dangers which a connection of this sort with the idolatrous Ahab and with Jezebel might bring upon his kingdom.

Vers. 2-34. The campaign undertaken along with Ahab against the Syrians at Ramoth in Gilead, with its origin, course, and results for Ahab, is narrated in 1 Kings xxii. (in the history of

Ahab) in agreement with our narrative, only the introduction to the war being different here. In 1 Kings xxii. 1-3 it is remarked, in connection with the preceding wars of Ahab with the Syrians, that after there had been no war for three years between Aram and Israel, in the third year Jehoshaphat king of Judah came up to the king of Israel; and the latter, when he and his servants had determined to snatch away from the Syrians the city Ramoth in Gilead, which belonged to Israel, called upon Jehoshaphat to march with him to the war against Ramoth. In the Chronicle the more exact statement, " in the third year," which is intelligible only in connection with the earlier history of Ahab, is exchanged for the indefinite DW" pi?p? " at the end of years;" and mention is made of the festal entertainment which Ahab bestowed upon his guest and his train 0W "NPK oyn), to show the pains which Ahab took to induce King Jehoshaphat to take part in the proposed campaign. He killed sheep and oxen for him in abundance, tftf}*?5> and enticed, seduced him to go up with him to Ramoth. fispn? to incite, entice to anything (Judg. i. 14), frequently to evil; cf. Deut. xiii. 7, etc. TO?, to advance upon a land or a city in a warlike sense. The account which follows of the preparations for the campaign by inquiring of prophets, and of the war itself, vers. 4—34, is in almost verbal agreement with 1 Kings xxii. 5-35. Referring to 1 Kings xxii. for the commentary on the substance of the narrative, we will here only group together briefly the divergences. Instead of 400 men who were prophets, ver. 5, in 1 Kings xxii. 6 we have about 400 men. It is a statement in round numbers, founded not upon exact enumeration, but upon an approximate estimate. Instead of ^jnK DK... sj«n, ver. 5, in Kings, ver. 6, we have Tins DK... "^n, both verbs being in the same number; and so too in ver. 14, where in Kings, ver. 15, both verbs stand in the plural, notwithstanding that the answer which follows, np>*rn H7j;? is addressed to Ahab alone, not to both the kings, while in the Chronicle the answer is given in the plural to both the kings, ln7V™ *'¥.• In ver. 7a, u he prophesies me nothing good, but all his days (i.e. so long as he has been a prophet) evil," the meaning is intensified by the VDJ "73, which is not found in 1 Kings ver. 8. In ver. 9, the MtPty, which is introduced before the D)z, u and sitting upon the threshing-floor," is due to difference of style, for it is quite superfluous for the signification. In ver. 14, the ambiguous words of Micah, u and Jahve will give into the hand of the king" (Kings, ver. 15), are given in a more definite form: "and they (the enemy) shall be given into your hand." In ver. 19, in the first H33 "\m PIT, the "»EK after the preceding "i^l is not only superfluous, but improper, and has probably come into the text by a copyist's error. We should therefore read only Hb3 nt, corresponding to the H33 n? of Kings, ver. 20: "Then spake one after this manner, and the other spake after another manner." In ver. 23, the indefinite npK of Kings, ver. 24, is elucidated by TO? nJ % "is that the manner" (cf. 1 Kings xiii. 12; 2 Kings iii. 8), and the verb. "W follows without the relative pronoun, as in the passages cited. In ver. 30, only Ml? *TS? °f tne king are mentioned, without any statement of the number, which is given in Kings, ver. 31, with a backward reference to the former war (1 Kings xx. 24). In ver. 31, after the words, " and Jehoshaphat cried out," the higher cause of Jehoshaphat's rescue is pointed out in the words, " and Jahve helped him, and God drove them from him," which are not found in Kings, ver. 32; but by this religious reflection the actual course of the event is in no way altered. Bertheau's remark, therefore, that " the words disturb the clear connection of the events," is quite unwarrantable. Finally, in ver. 34, "TOjft? njn, he was holding his position, i.e. he held himself standing upright, the Hiph. is more expressive than the Hoph. ^pyD (Kings, ver. 35), since it expresses more definitely the fact that he held himself upright by his own strength. With Ahab's death, which took place in the evening at the time of the going down of the sun, the author of the Chronicle concludes his account of this war, and proceeds in chap. xix. to narrate the further course of Jehoshaphat's reign. In 1 Kings xxii. 36-39, the return of the defeated army, and the details as to Ahab's death and burial, are recorded; but these did not fit into the plan of the Chronicle.

Chap. xix. The prophet Jehus declaration as to Jehoshaphat's alliance with Ahab9 and Jehoshaphat's further efforts to promote the fear of God and the administration of justice in Judah. — Vers. 1-3. Jehu's declaration. Jehoshaphat returned from the war in which Ahab had lost his life, Ew'3, i.e. safe, uninjured, to his house in Jerusalem; so that the promise of Micah in xviii. lQb was fulfilled also as regards him. But on his return, the seer Jehu, the son of Hanani, who had been thrown into the stocks by Asa (xvi. 7 ff.), met him with the reproving word, " Should one help the wicked, and lovest thou the haters of Jahve!" (the inf. with?, as in 1 Chron. v. 1, ix. 25, etc.). Of these sins Jehoshaphat had been guilty. u And therefore is anger from Jahve upon thee" (?V *|¥£ as in 1 Chron. xxvii. 24). Jehoshaphat had already had experience of this wrath, when in the battle of Ramoth the enemy pressed upon him (xviii. 31), and was at a later time to have still further experience of it, partly during his own life, when the enemy invaded his land (chap, xx.), and when he attempted to re-establish the sea trade with Ophir (xx. 35 if.), partly after his death in his family (chap, xxi. and xxii.). "But," continues Jehu, to console him, "yet there are good things found in thee (cf. xii. 12), for thou hast destroyed the Asheroth,.." nh«W| = D*J«fc, xvii. 6. On these last words, comp. xii. 14 and xvii. 4.

Vers. 4-11. — Jehoshaphat' s further arrangements for the revival of the Jahve-ivorship, and the establishment of a proper administration of justice. — The first two clauses in ver. 4 are logically connected thus: When Jehoshaphat (after his return from the war) sat (dwelt) in Jerusalem, he again wrent forth (&WJJ im are to be taken together) among the people, from Beersheba, the southern frontier (see 1 Chron. xxi. 2), to Mount Ephraim, the northern frontier of the kingdom of Judah, and brought them back to Jahve, the God of the fathers. The "again" (p&l) can refer only to the former provision for the instruction of the people, recorded in chap. xvii. 7 if.; all that was effected by the commission which Jehoshaphat had sent throughout the land being regarded as his work. The instruction of the people in the law was intended to lead them back to the Lord. Jehoshaphat now again took up his work of reformation, in order to complete the work he had begun, by ordering and improving the administration of justice.' — Ver. 5 if. He set judges in the land, in all the fenced cities of Judah; they, as larger cities, being centres of communication for their respective neighbourhoods, and so best suited to be the seats of judges. "Vjn Tp, in reference to every city, as the law (Deut. xvi. 18) prescribed. He laid it upon the consciences of these judges to administer justice conscientiously. " Not for men are ye to judge, but for Jahve;" i.e. not on the appointment and according to the will of men, but in the name and according to the will of the Lord (cf. Pro v. xvi. 11). In the last clause of ver. 6, Jahve is to be supplied from the preceding context: " and Jahve is with you in judgment," i.e. in giving your decisions (cf. the conclusion of ver. 11); whence this clause, of course, only serves to strengthen the foregoing, only contains the thoughts already expressed in the law, that judgment belongs to God (cf. Deut. i. 17 with Ex. xxi. 6, xxii. 7 f.). Therefore the fear of the Lord should keep the judges from unrighteousness, so that they should neither allow themselves to be influenced by respect of persons, nor to be bribed by gifts, against which Deut. xvi. 19 and i. 17 also warns. ^W T\nv is rightly paraphrased by the Vulgate, cum diligentia cuncta facite. The clause, " With God there is no respect of persons," etc., recalls Deut. x. 17. — Vers. 8-11. Besides this, Jehoshaphat established at Jerusalem a supreme tribunal for the decision of difficult cases, which the judges of the individual cities could not decide. Ver. 8. u Moreover, in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set certain of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chiefs of the fathers'-houses of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies (2*v)." From this clause Berth, correctly draws the conclusion, that as in Jerusalem, so also in the fenced cities (ver. 5), it was Levites, priests, and heads of the fathers'-houses who were made judges. This conclusion is not inconsistent with the fact that David appointed 6000 of the Levites to be shoterim and judges; for it does not follow from that that none but Levites were appointed judges, but only that the Levites were to perform an essential part in the administration of the law. The foundation of the judicial body in Israel was the appointment of judges chosen from the elders of the people (Ex. xviii. 21 ff.; Deut. i. 15 ff.) by Moses, at Jethro's instigation, and under the divine sanction. David had no intention, by his appointment of some thousands of Levites to be officials (writers) and judges, to set aside the Mosaic arrangement; on the contrary, he thereby gave it the expansion which the advanced development of the kingdom required. For the simple relationships of the Mosaic time, the appointment of elders to be judges might have been sufficient; but when in the course of time, especially after the introduction of the kingship, the social and political relations became more complicated, it is probable that the need of appointing men with special skill in law, to co-operate with the judges chosen from among the elders, in order that justice might be administered in a right way, and in a manner corresponding to the law, made itself increasingly felt; that consequently David had felt himself called upon to appoint a greater number of Levites to this office, and that from that time forward the courts in the larger cities were composed of Levites and elders. The supreme court which Jehoshaphat set up in Jerusalem was established on a similar basis. For nw ttapp? we have in ver. 11 mrp— a**;?h\ i.e. for all matters connected with religion and the worship; and instead of 3*"}? we have ^fen "On fep, for every matter of the king, i.e. for all civil causes. The last clause, ver. 8, a?W to&;»v cannot signify that the men called to this supreme tribunal went to Jerusalem to dwell there thenceforth (Ramb., etc.), or that the suitors went thither; for 2W does not denote to betake oneself to a place, but to return, which cannot be said of the persons above named, since it is not said that they had left Jerusalem. With Kimchi and others, we must refer the words to the previous statement in ver. 4, 'U1 DJD arc^ and understand them as a supplementary statement, that Jehoshaphat and those wrho had gone forth with him among the people returned to Jerusalem, which would have come in more fittingly at the close of ver. 7, and is to be rendered: " when they had returned to Jerusalem." The bringing in of this remark at so late a stage of the narrative, only after the establishment of the supreme tribunal has been mentioned, is explained by supposing that the historian was in< duced by the essential connection between the institution of the supreme court and the arrangement of the judicatories in the provincial cities, to leave out of consideration the order of time in describing the arrangements made by Jehoshaphat. — Ver. 9 f. To the members of the superior tribunal also, Jehoshaphat gave orders to exercise their office in the fear of the Lord, with fidelity and with upright heart (a?& 32;3, corde s. animo integroj cf. xv. 17, xvi. 9). POTH nb? thus shall ye do; what they are to do being stated only in ver. 10. The 1 before 2*}?-} is explicative, namely, and is omitted by the LXX. and Vulg. as superfluous. " Every cause wdiich comes to you from your brethren who dwell in their cities" (and bring causes before the superior court in the following cases): between blood and blood (P3 with p following, as in Gen. i. 6, etc.), i.e. in criminal cases of murder and manslaughter, and between law and between command, statutes, and judgments, i.e. in cases where the matter concerns the interpretation and application of the law, and its individual commands, statutes, and judgments, to particular crimes; wherever, in short, there is any doubt by what particular provision of the law the case in hand should be decided. With EFT!?!™ the apodosis commences, but it is an anacolouthon. Instead of " ye shall give them instruction therein," we have, u ye shall teach them (those who bring the cause before you), that they incur not guilt, and an anger (i.e. God's anger and punishment) come upon you and your brethren" (cf. ver. 2). "^jn, properly to illuminate, metaphorically to teach, wTith the additional idea of exhortation or warning;. The word is taken from Ex. xviii. 20, and there is construed c. accus. pers. et rei. This construction is here also the underlying one, since the object which precedes in the absolute is to be taken as accus.: thus, and as regards every cause, ye shall teach them concerning it. After the enumeration of the matters falling within the jurisdiction of this court, FOTH nb is repeated, and this precept is then pressed home upon the judges by the words, u that ye incur not guilt." Thereafter (in ver. 11) Jehoshaphat nominates the spiritual and civil presidents of this tribunal: for spiritual causes the high priest Amariah, who is not the same as the Amariah mentioned after Zadok as the fifth high priest (1 Chron. v. 37) (see p. 116 and 120); in civil causes Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the prince of the house of Judah, i.e. tribal prince of Judah. These shall be ED^y over vou> i-e- presidents of the judges; and CHtSBP, writers, shall the Levites be E^Dp, before you, i.e. as your assistants and servants. Jehoshaphat concludes the nomination of the judicial staff with the encouraging words, " Be strong (courageous) and do," i.e. go to work with good heart, " and the Lord be with the good," i.e. with him who discharges the duties of his office well.

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

Chap. xx. Jehoshaphat1 s victory over the Moabites, Ammonites, and other nations; and the remaining items of information as to his reign. — Vers. 1-30. The victory over the hostile peoples who invaded Judah. In the succeeding time, the Moabites and Ammonites, in alliance with other tribes of Mount Seir, invaded Judah with the purpose of driving the people of God out of their country, and extirpating them (ver. 1). On being informed of this invasion, Jehoshaphat sought help of the Lord, while he proclaimed a fast in the land, and in the temple before the assembled people prayed God for His help (vers. 2—12); and received by the mouth of the prophet Jahaziel the promise that God would fight for Judah, and that king and people would next day behold the help the Lord would give (vers. 13-18). And so it happened. On the following day, when the Judaean army, with the Levitic singers and players at their head, came into the wilderness Jeruel, their enemies had by the dispensation of God mutually destroyed each other (vers. 19-24), so that Jehoshaphat and his people found the proposed battle-field full of corpses, and gathered spoil for three days, and then on the fourth day, in the Valley of Blessing, they praised the Lord for the wonderful deliverance; thereafter returning to Jerusalem with joy, again to thank the Lord in the house of God for His help (vers. 25-30).

Ver. 1 f. By I2"TD*| postea, the war which follows is made to fall in the latter part of Jehoshaphat's reign, but certainly not in the last year in which he reigned alone, two years before his death, but only somewhat later than the events in chap, xviii. and xix., which occurred six or seven years before his death. Along with the Moabites and Ammonites there marched against Jehoshaphat also b^faSJfjg. This statement is obscure. Since jft has unquestionably a partitive or local signification, we might take the word to signify, enemies who dwelt aside from the Ammonites (}£ as in 1 Sam. xx. 22, 37), which might possibly be the designation of tribes in the Syro-Arabic desert bordering upon the country of the Ammonites on the north and east; and ^I^D in ver. 2 would seem to favour this idea. But vers. 10 and 22 f. are scarcely reconcilable with this interpretation, since there, besides or along with the sons of.Ammon and Moab, inhabitants of Mount Seir are named as enemies who had invaded Judah. Now the Edomites dwelt on Mount Seir; but had the Edomites only been allies of the Ammonites and Moabites, we should expect simply CHN \ja or ttDVlK, or TJW ^n (cf. xxv. 11, 14). Nor can it be denied that the interpretation which makes D*3tegno to denote peoples dwelling beyond the Ammonites is somewhat artificial and far-fetched. Under these circumstances, the alteration proposed by Hiller in Onomast. p. 285 commends itself, viz. the change of D^IDJMB into D^JJtsnDj Maunites or Maonites, — a tribe whose headquarters were the city Maan in the neighbourhood of Petra, to the east of the Wady Musa; see on 1 Chron. iv. 41. Maan lay upon Mount Seir, i.e. in the mountainous district to the west of the Arabah, which stretches upwards from the head of the Dead Sea to the Elanitic Gulf, now called Jebfil (Gebalene) in its northern part, and es-Sherah in the south. The Maunites were consequently inhabitants of Mount Seir, and are here mentioned instead of the Edomites, as being a people dwelling on the southern side of the mountain, and probably of non-Edomitic origin, in order to express the idea that not merely the Edomites took part in the campaign of the Ammonites and Moabites, but also tribes from all parts of Mount Seir. In chap. xxvi. 7 the DWD are mentioned along with Arabs and Philistines as enemies of Israel, who had been conquered by Uzziah. These circumstances favour the proposed alteration; while, on the contrary, the fact that the LXX. have here i/c tcov Mivaicov for D^isyniD proves little, since these translators have rendered D^tejn in xxvi. 8 also by ol Mivcuol, there erroneously making the Ammonites Minaiites. — Ver. 2. Then they came and announced to Jehoshaphat, sc. messengers or fugitives; the subject is indefinite, and is to be supplied from the context. li Against thee there cometh a great multitude from beyond the (Dead) sea." &"W:> also has no suitable sense here, since in the whole narrative nothing is said of enemies coming out of Syria; we should read tilS'O with Calmet and others. As the enemy made their attack from the south end of the Dead Sea, the messengers announce that they were come from Edom. " Behold, they are in Hazazon-Tamar," i.e. Engedi, the present Ain Jidy, midway along the west coast of the Dead Sea (see on Josh. xv. 62 and Gen. xiv. 7), about fifteen hours from Jerusalem.

Vers. 3-13. This report filled Jehoshaphat with fear, and he resolved to seek help of the Lord. VJB |nj = *fi DV^? cf. 2 Kings xii. 18, Jer. xlii. 15, to direct the face to anything, i.e. to purpose something, come to a determination. He proclaimed a fast in all Judah, that the people might bow themselves before God, and supplicate His help, as was wont to be done in great misfortunes; cf. Judg. xx. 26, 1 Sam. vii. 6, Isa.ii. 15. In consequence of the royal appeal, Judah came together to seek of the Lord, i.e. to pray for help, by fasting and prayer in the temple; and it was not only the inhabitants of Jerusalem who thus assembled, for they came out of all the cities of the kingdom. miTD £^n? to seek of the Lord, sc. help, is expressed in the last clause by mrP-JiN &$2t to seek the Lord. — Ver. 5. When the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem had assembled themselves in the house of God, Jehoshaphat came forth before the new court and made supplication in fervent prayer to the Lord. The new court is the outer or great court of the temple, which Solomon had built (iv. 9). It is here called the new court, probably because it had been restored or extended under Jehoshaphat or Asa. This court was the place where the congregation assembled before God in the sanctuary. Jehoshaphat placed himself before it, i.e. at the entrance into the court of the priests, so that the congregation stood opposite to him. — Ver. 6 ff. The prayer which Jehoshaphat directed to Jahve the God of the fathers, as the almighty Ruler over all kingdoms, consists of a short representation of the circumstances of the case. Jahve had given the land to His people Israel for an everlasting possession, and Israel had built a sanctuary to His name therein (vers. 7 and 8); but they had in no way provoked the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites to fall upon them, and to drive them out of their land (vers. 10 and 11). On these two facts Jehoshaphat founds his prayer for help, in a twofold manner: in respect to the first, calling to mind the divine promise to hear the prayers offered up to God in the temple (ver. 9); and in reference to the second, laying emphasis upon the inability of Israel to fight against so numerous an enemy (ver. 12). In his manner of addressing Jahve, " God of our fathers," there is contained a reason why God should protect His people in their present distress. Upon Him, who had given the land to the fathers for a possession, it was incumbent to maintain the children in the enjoyment of it, if they had not forfeited it by their sins. Now Jahve as a covenant God was bound to do this, and also as God and ruler of heaven and earth He had the requisite power and might; cf. Ps. cxv. 3. 23rnnp ^fty ps, there is none with Thee who could set himself, i.e. could withstand Thee: cf. the similar phrase, xiv. 10; and for the thought, see 1 Chron. xxix. 12. — On ver. la, cf. Josh, xxiii. 9, xxiv. 12, Ex. xxiii. 20 ff., etc.; on lb, cf. Gen. xiii. 15 f., xv. 18, etc.; on l^ni*, Isa. xli. 8. — Ver. 8. In this land they dwelt, and built Thee therein a sanctuary for Thy name; cf. vi. 5, 8. *>^^, saying, i.e. at the consecration of this house, having expressed the confident hope contained in the following words (ver. 9). In this verse, the cases enumerated in Solomon's dedicatory prayer, in which supplication is made that God would hear in the temple, are briefly summed up. By referring to that prayer, Jehoshaphat presupposes that Jahve had promised that He would answer prayer offered there, since He had filled the temple with His glory; see vii. 1-3. The name OiD£;7 which occurs only here, between 'CT and T\n, denotes in this connection a punitive judgment. — Ver. 10. ^W, and now, the contrary of this has occurred. Peoples into whose midst (DH3 NO?... ">&?K) Thou didst not allow Israel to come, i.e. into whose land Thou didst not allow Israel to enter when they came out of the land of Egypt, for they (the Israelites under Moses) turned from them and destroyed them not (cf. as to the fact, Num. xx. 14 ff.; Deut. ii. 4, ix. 19); behold, these peoples recompense us by coming to cast us out of our possession which Thou hast given us (^Tn, to give as a possession, as in Judg. xi. 24). There follows hereupon in ver. 12 the prayer: " Our God, wilt Thou not judge," i.e. do right upon them, for we have not strength before (to withstand) this multitude? We know not what to do, sc. against so many enemies; but our eyes are turned to Thee, i.e. to Thee we look for help; cf. Ps. exxiii. 2, cxli. 8. — Ver. 13. Thus all Judah, with their king, stood praying before the Lord. They had, moreover, brought with them their little ones, their wives, and their sons, to pray for deliverance for them from the enemy; cf. Judith iv. 9.

Vers. 14-19. The Lord's answer by the prophet Jahaziel. — Ver. 14. In the midst of the assembly the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel, a Levite of the sons of Asaph, and promised miraculous assistance to king and people. Jahaziel's descent is traced back for five generations to the Levite Mattaniah of the sons of Asaph. This Mattaniah is not the same person as the Mattaniah in 1 Chron. xxv. 4, 16, who lived in David's time, for he belonged to the sons of Heman; but perhaps (as Movers conjectures, S. 112) he is identical with the Asaphite Nethaniah, 1 Chron. xxv. 2, 12, since D and } might easily be confounded. — Ver. 15. Jahaziel announced to the king and people that they need not fear before the great multitude of their foes; " for the war is not yours, but Jahve's," i.e. you have not to make war upon them, for the Lord will do it; cf. 1 Sam. xvii. 47. — Ver. 16. " To-morrow go ye down against them: behold, they come up by the height Hazziz; and ye will find them at the end of the valley, before the desert Jeruel." The wilderness Jeruel was, without doubt, the name of a part of the great stretch of flat country, bounded on the south by the Wady el Ghar, and extending from the Dead Sea to the neighbourhood of Tekoa, which is now called el Hasasah, after a wady on its northern side. The whole country along the west side of the Dead Sea, " where it does not consist of mountain ridges or deep valleys, is a high table-land, sloping gradually towards the east, wholly waste, merely covered here and there with a few bushes, and without the slightest trace of having ever been cultivated" (Robinson's Pal. sub voce). The name ptfn n?^^ ascent or height of Hazziz, has perhaps remained attached to the Wadv el Hasasah. LXX. have rendered jM2>n by 'Aacrds; Josephus (Antt. ix. 1. 2) has avaftdcrecos Xeyo/xevrj^ e?°%%; m accordance with which Robinson (loc. cit.) takes the way " upwards from Ziz " to be the pass which at present leads from Ain Jidy to the table-land. Yet it is described by him as a " fearful pass," * and it can hardly be thought of here, even if the enemy, like the Bedouins now when on their forays, may be

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

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

Vers. 20-30. The fulfilment of the divine promise. — Ver. 20. On the next morning the assembled men of Judah marched, in accordance with the words of the prophet, to the wilderness of Tekoa. As they marched forth, Jehoshaphat stood, probably in the gate of Jerusalem, where those about to march forth were assembled, and called upon them to trust firmly in the Lord and His prophets (^ENn and ttBKR, as in Isa. vii. 9). After he had thus counselled the people QX YV)\ shown himself a counsellor; cf. 2 Kings vi. 8), he ordered them to march, not for battle, but to assure themselves of the wonderful help of the Lord. He placed singers of the Lord (5> before mrp as a periphrasis for the genitive), singing praise in holy ornaments, in the marching forth before the army, and saying; i.e. he commanded the Levitic singers to march out before the army, singing and playing in holy ornaments (*PTTTTOJ clad in holy ornaments, =nYin a in 1 Chron. xvi. 29; cf. Ew. § 217, a), to praise the Lord for the help He had vouchsafed. — Ver. 22. And at the time when they (having come into the neighbourhood of the hostile camp) began with singing and praising, Jahve directed liers in wait against the sons of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, who were come against Judah, and they were smitten. B^KD denotes liers in wait, men hidden in ambush and lying in wait (Judg. ix. 25). Who are here meant cannot be ascertained with certainty. Some of the older commentators, Ew. and Berth., think it refers to powers, angels sent by God, who are called insidiatores, because of the work they had to do in the army of the hostile peoples. But the passages where the interposition of heavenly powers is spoken of are different (cf. 2 Kings vi. 17, xix. 35), and it is not probable that heavenly powers would be called M"1SJD. Most probably earthly liers in wait are meant, who unexpectedly rushed forth from their ambush upon the hostile army, and raised a panic terror among them; so that, as is narrated in ver. 23 f., the Ammonites and Moabites first turned their weapons against the inhabitants of Mount Seir, and after they had exterminated them, began to exterminate each other. But the ambush cannot have been composed of men of Judah, because they were, according to vers. 15 and 17, not to fight, but only to behold the deliverance wrought by the Lord. Probably it was liers in wait of the Seirites, greedy of spoil, who from an ambush made an attack upon the Ammonites and Moabites, and by the divine leading put the attacked in such fear and confusion, that they turned furiously upon the inhabitants of Mount Seir, who marched with them, and then fell to fighting with each other; just as, in Judg. vii. 22 f., the Midianites were, under divine influence, so terrified by the unexpected attack of the small band led by Gideon, that they turned their swords against and mutually destroyed each other. rV ^WPS. Dnfe^ and when they had come to an end (wTere finished) among the inhabitants of Seir, when they had massacred these, they helped the one against the other to destruction (n^n^'D is a substantive, as xxii. 4, Ezek. v. 16, etc.). — Ver. 24. Now, when Judah came to the height in the wilderness (n.£?0, specula, watch-tower, here a height in the wilderness of Tekoa, whence one might look out over the wilderness Jeruel, ver. 1G), and turned, or was about to turn, against the multitude of the enemy (p£?H referring back to ver. 12), behold, they saw "corpses lying upon the earth, and none had escaped," i.e. they saw corpses in such multitude lying there, that to all appearance none had escaped. — Ver. 25. So Jehoshaphat, with his people, came (as Jahaziel had announced, not to fight, but only to make booty) and found among them (BH2, among or by the fallen) in abundance both wealth and corpses and precious vessels. The mention of &1}5 as part of the booty, between B*P1 and the precious vessels, is somewhat surprising. Some Codd. (4 Kennic. and 3 de Rossi) and various ancient editions (Complut., the Brixenian used by Luther, the Bomberg. of date 1518 and 21, and the Miinster) have, instead of it, D^JS; but it is very questionable if the LXX. and Vulg. have it (cf. de Rossi varice lectt. ad h. L). D,|1J3, garments, along with ^13"), moveable property (cattle, tents, etc.), seems to suit better, and is therefore held by Dathe and Berth, to be the correct and original reading. Yet the proofs of this are not decisive, for Dn:D is much better attested, and we need not necessarily take won to mean living and dead cattle; but just as B^3"i denotes property of any kind, which, among nomadic tribes, consists principally in cattle, we may also take D*"]}3 in the signification of slain men and beasts — the clothes of the men and the accoutrements and ornaments of the beasts (cf. Judg. viii. 26) being a by no means worthless booty. Garments as such are not elsewhere met with in enumerations of things taken as booty, in Judg. viii. 26 only the purple robes of the Midianite princes being spoken of; and to the remark that the before-mentioned Eh"0?> has given rise to the changing of B^JS into E^3, we may oppose the equally well-supported conjecture, that the apparently unsuitable meaning of the word enjs may have given rise to the alteration of it into E^r1' Dillon v2 are probably in the main gold and silver ornaments, such as are enumerated in Judg. viii. 25 f. And they spoiled for themselves fc&'D p^?, " there was not carrying," i.e. in such abundance that it could not be carried away, removed, and plundered in three days, because the booty was so great. The unusually large quantity of booty is accounted for by the fact that these peoples had gone forth with all their property to drive the Israelites out of their inheritance, and to take possession of their land for themselves; so that this invasion of Judah was a kind of migration of the peoples, such as those which, at a later time, have been repeated on a gigantic scale, and have poured forth from Central Asia over the whole of Europe. In this, the purpose of the hostile hordes, we must seek the reason for their destruction by a miracle wrought of God. Because they intended to drive the people of Israel out of the land given them by God, and to destroy them, the Lord was compelled to come to the help of His people, and to destroy their enemies. — Ver. 2Q. On the fourth day the men of Judah gathered themselves together, to give thanks to God the Lord for this blessing, in a valley which thence received the name rD*!3 pfty (valley of blessing), and which cannot have been far from the battle-field. Thence they joyfully returned, with Jehoshaphat at their head, to Jerusalem, and went up, the Levites and priests performing solemn music, to the house of God, to render further thanks to the Lord for His wondrous help (ver. 27 f.). The ancient name iWa still exists in the Wady Bereikut, to the west of Tekoa, near the road which leads from Hebron to Jerusalem. "A wide, open valley, and upon its west side, on a small rising ground, are the ruins of Bereikut, which cover from three to four acres " (Robinson's Neio Biblical Researches, and Phys. Geogr. S. 106; cf. v. de Velde, Memoir, p. 292). Jerome makes mention of the place in Vita Paula, where he narrates that Paula, standing in supercilio Caphar baruca, looked out thence upon the wide desert, and the former land of Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Reland, Pal. illustr. pp. 356 and 685). There is no ground, on the other hand, for the identification of the valley of blessing with the upper part of the valley of Kidron, which, according to Joel iv. 2, 12, received the name of Valley of Jehoshaphat (see on Joel iv. 2).— On ver. 21b, cf. Ezra vi. 22, Neh. xii. 43.— Ver. 29. The fame of this victory of the Lord over the enemies of Israel caused the terror of God to be spread abroad over all the kingdoms of the surrounding lands, in consequence of whreh the kingdom of Judah had rest (cf. xvii. 10). On the last clause of ver. 30, cf. xv. 15. This wonderful act of the Lord is made the subject of praise to God in the Korahite Psalms, xlvi., xlvii., and xlviii., and perhaps also in Ps. Ixxxiii., composed by an Asaphite, perhaps Jahaziel (see Del. Introduction to these Psalms).

Vers. 31-37. Concluding notes on Jehoshaphat's reign, which are found also in 1 Kings xxii. 41-51, where they, supplemented by some notes (vers. 45, 48, and 49) which are wanting in the Chronicle, form the whole account of his reign. In the statements as to Jehoshaphat's age at his accession, and the length and character of his reign, both accounts agree, except that the author of the Chronicle has, instead of the stereotyped formula, u and the people still sacrificed and offered incense upon the high places," a remark more significant of the state of affairs: " and the people had not yet determinedly turned their heart to the God of their fathers" (ver. 33). The notice that Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel (Kings, ver. 45) is not found in the Chronicle, because that would, as a matter of course, follow from Jehoshaphat's having joined affinity with the royal house of Ahab, and had been already sufficiently attested by the narrative in chap, xviii., and is so still further by the undertaking spoken of in ver. 35 ff. For the same reason, the clause introduced in 1 Kin^s xxii. 46 about the valiant acts and the wars of Jehoshaphat is omitted in the Chronicle, as these acts have been specially narrated here. As to Jehu's speeches, which were put into the book of Kings, see the Introduction, p. 34. Further, the remark on the driving out of the remaining Sodomites (^*?P) from the land, 1 Kings xxii. 47, which refers back to 1 Kings xv. 12, is wanting here, because this speciality is not mentioned in the case of Asa. Finally, the remark that Edom had no king, but only a viceroy or deputy, serves in 1 Kings xxii. 48 only as an introduction to the succeeding account of Jehoshaphat's attempt to open up anew the sea traffic with Ophir. But on that subject the author of the Chronicle only recounts in vers. 35-37 that Jehoshaphat allied himself with the godless Ahaziah the king of Israel to build in Ezion-gaber ships to go to Tarshish, was censured for it by the prophet Eliezer, who announced to him that Jahve would destroy his work, and that thereupon the ships were broken, doubtless by a storm, and so could not go upon the voyage. I-P?!?*? does not definitely fix the time (cf. xx. 1), but only states that the alliance with Ahaziah took place after the victory over the Ammonites and Moabites. Ahaziah ascended the throne in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat, and reigned scarcely two years, and the enterprise under discussion falls in that period, "^nrix is an Aramaic form for "i^nnn. The last clause of ver. 38, u he did wickedly," Bertheau refers to Jehoshaphat: he did wrong; because the context shows that these words are intended to contain a censure on Jehoshaphat for his connection with the king of the northern kingdom. But this remark, though substantially correct, by no means proves that fc^n refers to Jehoshaphat. The words contain a censure on Jehoshaphat on account of his alliance with Ahaziah, even if they describe Ahaziah's conduct. We must, with the older commentators, take the words to refer to Ahaziah, for SfKhn is much too strong a word for Jehoshaphat's fault in the matter. The author of the Chronicle does indeed use the word JPBhn of Jehoshaphat's grandson Ahaziah, xxii. 3, in the clause, " his mother, a daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, was for 1?W~)J} his counsellor," but only that he may characterize the acts of the Ahabic house. Jehoshaphat allied himself with the wicked Ahaziah to build ships fi^Bnn J"D77? to go to Tarshish; and they built ships at Ezion-gaber, i.e. on the Red Sea. Instead of this, we have in 1 Kings xxii. 49: Jehoshaphat built Tarshish ships to go to Ophir for gold. Hence it is manifest that in both passages the same undertaking is spoken of, and the expression

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

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

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

Vers. 5—10. Duration and spirit of Joranxs reign. — These verses agree with 2 Kings viii. 17—22, with the exception of some immaterial divergences, and have been commented upon in the remarks on that passage. — In ver. 7 the thought is somewhat otherwise expressed than in ver. 19 (Kings): " Jahve would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that He had made with David; " instead of, u He would not destroy Judah because of David His servant, as He had said." Instead of T)rb Vllb TJ Sb we have in the Chronicle V^n^ T: & nrh. to give him a lamp, and that in respect of his sons, i being inserted before ViJ) to bring the idea more prominently forward. In regard to V~)b> Dy> ver. 9, instead of n"}W> Kings ver. 21, see on 2 Kings loc. cit. At the end of ver. 9 the words, u and the people fled to their tents" (ver. 21, Kings), whereby the notice of Joram' s attempt to bring Edom again under his sway, which is in itself obscure enough, becomes yet more obscure. — Ver. 10 f. The chronicler concludes the account of the revolt of Edom and of the city of Libnah against Judah' s dominion with the reflection: 6t For he (Joram) had forsaken Jahve the God of the fathers/' and consequently had brought this revolt upon himself, the Lord punishing him thereby for his sin. u Yea, even high places did he make." The E3 placed at the beginning may be connected with rrift3 (cf. Isa. xxx. 33), while the subject is emphasized by fcttn: The same who had forsaken the God of the fathers, made also high places, which Asa and Jehoshaphat had removed, xiv. 2, 4, xvii. 6. " And he caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication," i.e. seduced them into the idolatrous worship of Baal. That the Hiph. jW is to be understood of the spiritual whoredom of Baal-worship we learn from ver. 13: "as the house of Ahab caused to commit fornication." rpQ, " and misled Judah," i.e. drew them away by violence from the right way. fFP is to be interpreted in accordance with Deut. xiii. 6, 11. Vers. 12-19. The prophet Elijah's letter against Joram, and the infliction of the punishments as announced. — Ver. 12. There came to him a writing from the prophet Elijah to this effect: u Thus saith Jahve, the God of thy father David, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat,... but hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel,... and also hast slain thy brethren, the house of thy father, who were better than thyself; behold, Jahve will send a great plague upon thy people, and upon thy sons, and thy wives, and upon all thy goods; and thou shalt have great sickness, by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day." ^rop, writing, is a written prophetic threatening, in which his sins are pointed out to Joram, and the divine punishment for them announced. In regard to this statement, we need not be surprised that nothing is elsewhere told us of any written prophecies of Elijah; for we have no circumstantial accounts of his prophetic activity, by which we might estimate the circumstances which may have induced him in this particular instance to commit his orophecy to writing. But, on the other hand, it is very questionible if Elijah was still alive in the reign of Joram of Judah. r:Iis translation to heaven is narrated in 2 Kings ii., between the eign of Ahaziah and Joram of Israel, but the year of the event is nowhere stated in Scripture. In the Jewish Chronicle Seder olam, chap. xvii. 45, it is indeed placed in the second year of Ahaziah of Israel; but this statement is not founded upon historical tradition, but is a mere deduction from the fact that his translation is narrated in 2 Kings ii. immediately after Ahaziah's death; and the last act of Elijah of which we have any record (2 Kings i.) falls in the second year of that king. Lightfoot, indeed (Opp. i. p. 85), Ramb., and Dereser have concluded from 2 Kings iii. 11 that Elijah was taken away from the earth in the reign of Jehoshaphat, because according to that passage, in the campaign against the Moabites, undertaken in company with Joram of Israel, Jehoshaphat inquired for a prophet, and received the answer that Elisha was there, who had poured water upon the hands of Elijah. But the only conclusion to be drawn from that is, that in the camp, or near it, was Elisha, Elijah's servant, not that Elijah was no longer upon earth. The perfect PTr T^K seems indeed to imply this; but it is questionable if we may so press the perfect, i.e. whether the speaker made use of it, or whether it was employed only by the later historian. The words are merely a periphrasis to express the relationship of master and servant in which Elijah stood to Elisha, and tell us only that the latter was Elijah's attendant. But Elisha had entered upon this relationship to Elijah long before Elijah's departure from the earth (1 Kings xix. 19 ff.). Elijah may therefore have still been alive under Joram of Judah; and Berth, accordingly' thinks it " antecedently probable that he spoke of Joram's sins, and threatened him with punishment. But the letter," so he further says, "is couched in quite general terms, and gives, moreover, merely a prophetic explanation of the misfortunes with which Joram was visited;" whence we may conclude that in its present form it is the work of a historian living at a later time, who describes the relation of Elijah to Joram in few words, and according to his conception of it as a whole. This judgment rests on dogmatic grounds, and flows from a principle which refuses to recognise any supernatural prediction in the prophetic utterances. The contents of the letter can be regarded as a prophetic exposition of the misfortunes which broke in, as it were, upon Joram, only by those who deny a priori that there is any special prediction in the speeches of the prophets, and hold all prophecies which contain such to be valicinia post eventum. Somewhat more weighty is the objection raised against the view that Elijah was still upon earth, to the effect that the divine threatenings would make a much deeper impression upon Joram by the very fact that the letter came from a prophet who was no longer in life, and would thus more easily bring him to the knowledge that the Lord is the living God, who had in His hand his breath and all his ways, and who knew all his acts. Thus the writing would smite the conscience of Joram like a voice from the other world (Diichsel). But this whole remark is founded only upon subjective conjectures and presumptions, for which actual analogies are wanting. For the same reason we cannot regard the remark of Menken as very much to the point, when he says: " If a man like Elias were to speak again upon earth, after he had been taken from it, he must do it from the clouds: this would harmonize with the whole splendour of his course in life; and, in my opinion, that is what actually occurred." For although we do not venture " to mark the limits to which the power and sphere of activity of the perfected saints is extended," yet we are not only justified, but also bound in duty, to judge of those facts of revelation which are susceptible of different interpretations, according to the analogy of the whole Scripture. But the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments know nothing of any communications by writing between the perfected saints in heaven and men; indeed, they rather teach the contrary in the parable of the rich man 1 (Luke xvi. 31). There are consequently no sufficient grounds for believing that the glorified Elijah either sent a letter to Joram from heaven by an angel, or commissioned any living person to write the letter. The statement of the narrative, a there came to him a writing from Elijah the prophet," cannot well be understood to mean anything else than that Elijah wrote the threatening prophecy which follows; but we have no certain proof that Elijah was then no longer alive, but had been already received into heaven. The time of his translation cannot be exactly fixed. He was still alive in the second year of Ahaziah of Israel; for he an-

1 " Neque enim" says Ramb., " ulla ratione credibile est, Deum in gratiam impii regis ejusmodi quid fecisse, cujus nullum alias exemplum exstat; immo quod nee necessarium erat, quum plures alix essent rationes, quibus Dens voluntatem suam ei manifestare poterat; coll. Luc. xvi. 27, 29." And, still more conclusively, Calov. declares: " Non enivi triumpliantium in ccelis est erudire aut ad poznitentiam revocare mortales in terra. Habent Mosen et proplietas, si illos non andiant, neque si quis ex mortuis resurrexerit, nednm si quis ex ca:lis literas perscripserit, credent Luc. xvi. 31."

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

Elijah's writing pointed out to Joram two great transgressions: (1) his forsaking the Lord for the idolatrous worship of the house of Ahab, and also his seducing the people into this sin; and (2) the murder of his brothers. For the punishment of the first transgression he announced to him a great smiting which God would inflict upon his people, his family, and his property; for the second crime he foretold heavy bodily chastisements, by a dreadful disease which would terminate fatally. D^ 7V D^BJ, ver. 15, is accus. of duration: days on days, i.e. continuing for days added to days; cf. nj^ hv rw *3D? Isa. xxix. 1. CW Berth, takes to mean a period of a year, so that by this statement of time a period of two years is fixed for the duration of the disease before death. But the words in themselves cannot have this signification; it can only be a deduction from ver. 18. These two threats of punishment were fulfilled. The fulfilment of the first is recorded in ver. 16 f. God stirred up the spirit of the Philistines and the Arabians (nf DK "i^n, as in 1 Chron. v. 26), so that they came up against Judah, and broke it, i.e. violently pressed into the land as conquerors (VP^, to split, then to conquer cities by breaking through their walls; cf. 2 Kings xxv. 4, etc.), and carried away ail the goods that were found in the king's house, with the wives and sons of Joram, except Jehoahaz the youngest (xxii. 1). Movers (Clwon, S. 122), Credner, Hitz., and others on Joel iv. 5, Berth., etc., conclude from this that these enemies captured Jerusalem and plundered it. But this can hardly be the case; for although Jerusalem belonged to Judah, and might be included in iTOT37 yet as a rule Jerusalem is specially named along with Judah as being the chief city; and neither the conquest of Judah, nor the carrying away of the goods from the king's house, and of the king's elder sons, with certainty involves the capture of the capital. The opinion that by the " substance which was found in the king's house " we are to understand the treasures of the royal palace, is certainly incorrect. WW) denotes property of any sort; and what the property of the king or of the king's house might include, we may gather from the catalogue of the J"iii¥iK of David, in the country, in the cities, villages, and castles, 1 Chron. xxvii. 25 ff., where they consist in vineyards, forests, and herds of cattle, and together with the ^n nnvk formed the property (^1|J) of King David. All this property the conquering Philistines and Arabians who had pressed into Judah might carry away without having captured Jerusalem. But ^JBH H^a denotes here, not the royal palace, but the king's family; for?JPl3n fTO NVOan does not denote what was found in the palace, but what of the possessions of the king's house they found. K^p? with? is not synonymous with 3 KVE3, but denotes to be attained, possessed by; cf. Josh. xvii. 16 and Deut. xxi. 17. Had Jerusalem been plundered, the treasures of the palace and of the temple would also have been mentioned: 2 Chron. xxv. 24, xii. 9; 2 Kings xiv. 13 f. and 1 Kings xiv. 26; cf. Kuhlmey, alttestl. Studien in der Luther. Ztschr. 1844, iii. S. 82 ff. Nor does the carrying away of the wives and children of King Joram presuppose the capture of Jerusalem, as we learn from the more exact account of the matter in xxii. 1. — Ver. 18 f. The second punishment fell upon the body and life of the king. The Lord smote him in his bowels to (with) disease, for which there was no healing. NS"iD r«? is in apposition to vH?, literally, " to not being healing." — Ver. 19. And it came to pass in days after days (i.e. when a number of days had passed), and that at the time (*W) of the expiration of the end in two days, then his bowels went out during his sickness, and he died in sore pains (DWnfl, phenomena of disease, i.e. pains). The words WW D*DJ? ft?n dkv njEft are generally translated as if D^t? D^OT were a mere periphrasis of the stat. constr. Vatabl. and Cler., for example, translate: et secundum tempus egrediendi finis annorum duo?mm, i.e. postquam advenit finis a. d., or cum exacli essent duo anni; similarly Berth.: a at the time of the approach of the end of two times." But against this we have not only the circumstance that no satisfactory reason for the use of this periphrasis for the genitive can be perceived, and that no analogies can be found for the expression DW D'W ftpn, the end of two years, instead of DW D*9J] Ki?.; but also the more decisive linguistic reason that Y\)J} nfcW cannot denote the approach of the