Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Vers. 22-25. Increase of Ahaz1 transgressions against the Lord. — Ver. 22. After this proof that Ahaz only brought greater oppression upon himself by seeking help from the king of

Assyria (vers. 16-21), there follows (ver. 22 f.) an account of how he, in his trouble, continued to sin more and more against God the Lord, and hardened himself more and more in idolatry. 6 Wi njll corresponds to the &nr\ nj3, ver. 16. u At the time when they oppressed him, he trespassed yet more against the Lord, he King Ahaz." In the last words the rhetorical emphasizing of the subject comes clearly out, The sentence contains a general estimation of the attitude of the godless king under the divine chastisement, which is then illustrated by facts (vers. 23-25). — Ver. 23. He sacrificed to the gods of Damascus, which smote him, saying, i.e. thinking, The gods of the kings of Aram which helped them, to them will I sacrifice, and they will help me. ^ serves to introduce the saying, and both DH and Dnj are rhetorical. Berth, incorrectly translates the participle D^SH by the pluperfect: who had smitten him. It was not after the Syrians had smitten him that Ahaz sought to gain by sacrifice the help of their gods, but while the Syrians were inflicting defeats upon him; not after the conclusion of the Syrian war, but during its course. The ungrammatical translation of the participle by the pluperfect arises from the view that the contents of our verse, the statement that Ahaz sacrificed to the Syrian gods, is an unhistorical misinterpretation of the statement in 2 Kings xvi. 10 ff., about the altar which Ahaz saw when he went to meet the Assyrian king in Damascus, and a copy of which he caused to be made in Jerusalem, and set up in the temple court, in the place of the copper altar of burnt-offering. But we have already rejected that view as unfounded, in the exposition of 2 Kings xvi. 10. Since Ahaz had cast and erected statues to the Baals, and even sacrificed his son to Moloch, he naturally would not scruple to sacrifice to the Assyrian gods to secure their help. But they (these gods) brought ruin to him and to all Israel. ''W?2? is in the accusative, and co-ordinate with the suffix in fr'Kbn. — Ver. 24 f. Not content with thus worshipping strange gods, Ahaz laid violent hands upon the temple vessels and suppressed the temple worship. Tie collected all the vessels of the house of God together, and broke them in pieces. These words also are rhetorical, so that neither the *Pg*, which depicts the matter vividly, nor the?b, is to be pressed. The Hfi? of the vessels consisted, according to 2 Kings xvi. 17, in this, that he mutilated the artistically wrought vessels of the court, and cut out the panels from the bases, and took away the lavers from them, and took down the brazen sea from the oxen on which it stood, and set it upon a pavement of stones. " And he closed the doors of the house of Jahve," in order to put an end to the Jahve-worship in the temple, which he regarded as superfluous, since he had erected altars at the corners of all the streets in Jerusalem, and in all the cities of Judah. The statement as to the closing of the temple doors, to which reference is made in chap. xxix. 3, 7, is said by Berth, not to rest upon good historical recollection, because the book of Kings not only does not say anything of it, but also clearly gives us to understand that Ahaz allowed the Jahve-worship to continue, 2 Kings xvi. 15 f. That the book of Kings (ii. 16) makes no mention of this circumstance does not prove much, it being an argumentum e silentio; for the book of Kings is not a complete history, it contains only a short excerpt from the history of the kings; while the intimation given us in 2 Kings xvi. 15 f. as to the continuation of the worship of Jahve, may without difficulty be reconciled with the closing of the temple doors. The frin^r mrp JVn are not the gates of the court of the temple, but, according to the clear explanation of the Chronicle, chap. xxix. 7, the doors of the porch, which in xxix. 3 are also called doors of the house of Jahve; the " house of Jahve" signifying here not the whole group of temple buildings, but, in the narrower sense of the words, denoting only the main body of the temple (the Holy Place and the Most Holy, wherein Jahve was enthroned). By the closing of the doors of the porch the worship of Jahve in the Holy Place and the Most Holy was indeed suspended, but the worship at the altar in the court was not thereby necessarily interfered with: it might still continue. Now it is the worship at the altar of burnt-offering alone of which it is said in 2 Kings xvi. 15 that Ahaz allowed it to continue to this extent, that he ordered the priest Urijah to offer all the burnt-offerings and sacrifices, meat-offerings and drink-offerings, which were offered morning and evening by both king and people, not upon the copper sacrificial altar (Solomon's), but on the altar built after the pattern of that which he had seen at Damascus. The cessation of worship at this altar is also left unmentioned by the Chronicle, and in xxix. 7. Hezekiah, when he again opened the doors of the house of Jahve, only says to the priests and Levites, " Our fathers have forsaken Jahve, and turned their backs on His sanctuary; yea, have shut the doors of the porch, put out the lamps, and have not burnt incense nor offered burnt-offerings in the Holy Place iinto the God of Israel." Sacrificing upon an altar built after a heathen model was not sacrificing to the God of Israel. There is therefore no ground to doubt the historical truth of the statement in our verse. The description of the idolatrous conduct of Ahaz concludes with the remark, ver. 25, that Ahaz thereby provoked Jahve, the God of his fathers, to anger.

Vers. 26 and 27. The end of his reign. — Ver. 27. Ahaz indeed both died and was buried in the city, in Jerusalem (as 2 Kings xvi. 20), but was not laid in the graves of the kings, because he had not ruled like a king of the people of God, the true Israel. Since the name Israel is used in a pregnant sense, as in ver. 19, the terms in which the place where he died is designated, " in the city, in Jerusalem," would seem to have been purposely selected to intimate that Ahaz, because he had not walked during life like his ancestor David, was not buried along with David when he died.

Hezekiah, the pious son of the godless Ahaz, recognised that it was to be the business of his rei^n to brins; the kingdom out of the utterly ruinous condition into which Ahaz had brought it by his idolatry and his heathen policy, and to elevate the state again, both in respect to religion and morals, and also in political affairs. He consequently endeavoured, in the first place, to do away with the idolatry, and to restore the Jahve-worship according to the law, and then to throw off the yoke of subjection to the Assyrian. These two undertakings, on the success of which God bestowed His blessing, form the contents of the history of his reign both in the books of Kings and in the Chronicle; but they are differently treated by the authors of these books. In the book of Kings, the extirpation of idolatry, and Hezekiah's faithfulness in cleaving to the Lord his God, are very briefly recorded (2 Kings xvii. 3-7); while the throwing off of the Assyrian yoke, which brought on Sennacherib's invasion, and ended with the destruction of the Assyrian army before Jerusalem, and the further results of that memorable event (the sickness and recovery of Hezekiah, the arrival of a Babylonian embassy in Jerusalem, and Hezekiah's reception of them), are very fully narrated in 2 Kings xviii. 8- xx. 19. The author of the Chronicle, on the contrary, enlarges upon Hezekiah's reform of the cultus, the purification of the temple from all idolatrous abominations, the restoration of the Jahve-worship, and a solemn celebration of the passover, to which the king invited not only his own subjects, but also the remainder of the ten tribes (chap, xxix.-xxxi.); and gives merely a brief summary of the chief points in Sennacherib's invasion, and the events connected with it (chap, xxxii.).

Chap. xxix. The beginning of his reign (vers. 1,2). Purification and consecration of the temple (vers. 3-36). — Vers. 1 and 2. Age of Hezekiah, duration and spirit of his reign, as in 2 Kings xviii. 1-3. With ver. 3 the account of the restoration of the Jahve-worship begins. In the first year of his reign, in the first month, Hezekiah caused the temple doors to be opened, and the priests and Levites to assemble, in order that he might rouse them by an energetic address to purify the house of God from all the uncleannesses of idolatry (vers. 3-11). They, vigorously commencing the work, completed the purification of the temple with its courts and vessels in sixteen days, and reported to the king what had been done (vers. 12-19); and then the king and the chiefs of the city offered a great sacrifice to consecrate the purified sanctuary, upon which followed burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and thankofferings of the whole assembly (vers. 20-36).

Vers. 3-19. The purification of the temple by the priests and Levites. — Ver. 3. In the first year of his reign, in the first month, he caused the doors of the house of Jahve to be opened and repaired (pjH as in xxiv. 12, where it alternates with ^n). Cf. herewith the remark in 2 Kings xviii. 16, that Hezekiah caused the doors of the fa*n to be covered with leaf-gold. The date, in the first month, in the first year of his reign, is variously interpreted. As the Levites, according to ver. 17, began the purification on the first day of the first month, in eight days had reached the porch, and on the sixteenth day of the first month had completed the work, while the king had, according to ver. 4, before called upon the priests and Levites to sanctify themselves for the work, and those summoned then assembled their brethren for this purpose, and after they had consecrated themselves, began the cleansing (ver. 15), it would seem as if the summons of the king and the calling together of the remaining Levites had occurred before the first day of the first month, when they began the purification of the house of God. On that account Caspari (Beitriige z. Einleit. in d. B. Jesaiah, S. Ill) thinks that the first month (ver. 3) is not the first month of the year (Nisan), but the first month of the reign of Hezekiah, who probably became king shortly before Nisan, towards the end of the year. But it is not at all likely that ftftiftj} tsnnn is used in a different sense in ver. 3 from that in which it is used in ver. 17. We therefere hold, with Berth, and others, the first month, both in ver. 3 and in ver. 17, to be the first month of the ecclesiastical year Nisan, without, however, accepting the supposition of Gumpach and Bertheau that the years of Hezekiah's reign began with the first of Tishri, for for that way of reckoning there are no certain data in the historical books of the Old Testament. The statement, "in the first year of his reign, in the first month" (not in the first year, in the first month of his reign), is sufficiently explained if Hezekiah ascended the throne in one of the last months of the calendar year, which began with Nisan. In that case, on the first of Nisan of the new year, so few months, or perhaps only weeks, would have elapsed since his accession, that what he did in Nisan could not rightly have been dated otherwise than " in the first year of his reign." The other difficulty, that the purification of the temple began on the first day of the first month (ver. 7), while the preparations for it which preceded were yet, according to ver. 3, made also in the first month, is removed if we take ver. 3 to be a comprehensive summary of what is described in the following verses, and regard the connection between vers. 3 and 4 ff. as only logical, not chronological, the 1 consec. (N?*V) expressing, not succession in time, but connection in thought. The opening of the doors of the house of God, and the repairing of them (ver. 3), did not precede in time the summons to the priests (ver. 4), but is placed at the commencement of the account of the reopening and restoration of the temple as a contrast to the closing and devastation of the sanctuary by Ahaz. Hezekiah commenced this work in the first year of his reign, in the first month of the calendar year, and accomplished it as is described in vers. 4-1 7. If we take ver. 3 as a statement of the contents of the succeeding section, — as are e.g. (1 Kings vi. 14, vii. 1) the statements, u he built the house, and completed it," where in both passages the completion of the building is described only in the succeeding verses, — we need not confine the preparations spoken of in vers. 4-15 to the first day of the first month, but may quite well suppose that these preparations preceded the first day of the month, and that only the accomplishment of that which had been resolved upon and commanded by the king fell in the first month, as is more accurately stated in ver. 17. — Ver. 4. Hezekiah gathered the priests and Levites together u into the open space of the east," i.e in the eastern open space before the temple, not u in the inner court" (Berth.), — see on Ezra x. 9, — and called upon them (ver. 5) to sanctify themselves, and then to sanctify the house of the Lord. To purify the temple they must first sanctify themselves (cf. ver. 15), in order to proceed to the work of sanctifying the house of God in a state of Levitical purity. The work was to remove all that was unclean from the sanctuary. JTjan is Levitical uncleanness, for which in ver. 16 we have nxDtsn • here the abominations of idolatry. The king gave the reason of his summons in a reference to the devastation which Ahaz and his contemporaries had wrought in the house of God (vers. 6, 7), and to the wrath of God which had on that account come upon them (vers. 8, 9). " Our fathers" (ver. 6), that is, Ahaz and his contempo< raries, for only these had been guilty of displeasing God in the ways mentioned in vers. 6 and 7, Ci have turned away their face from the dwelling of Jahve, and turned their back (upon it)." These words are a symbolical expression for: they have ceased to worship Jahve in His temple, and exchanged it for idolatry. — Ver. 7. Even (D2) the doors of the porch have they shut, and caused the service in the sanctuary, the lighting of the lamps, and the sacrifices of incense, to cease; see on xxviii. 24. The words, " and they brought not burnt-offerings in the sanctuary to the God of Israel," do not imply the complete cessation of the legal sacrificial worship, but only that no burnt-offerings were brought to the God of Israel. Sacrifices offered upon the altar of burnt-offering built after a heathen pattern by Ahaz were not, in the eyes of the author of the Chronicle, sacrifices which were offered to the God of Israel; and it is also possible that even this sacrificial worship may have more and more decayed, EHp, ver. 7, is the whole sanctuary, with the court of the priests. — Ver. 8 f. Wherefore the wrath of the Lord came upon Judah and Jerusalem. Cf. for the expression, xxiv. 18, xxxii. 25; on ver. 8&, cf. Deut. xxviii. 25, 37, Jer. xxiv. 9, xxv. 9, etc. " As ye see with your eyes." The shameful defeats which Judah had sustained under Ahaz from the Syrians, Ephraimites, Philistines, and Edomites, and the oppression by the Syrian king (xxviii. 5 if., vers. 17-21), are here referred to, as we learn from ver. 9. — Ver. 10. To turn away this anger of God, Hezekiah wishes to make a covenant with the Lord, i.e. to renew the covenant with Jahve by restoring His worship ("On? ny as in vi. 7, ix. 1, 1 Chron. xxviii. 2, etc.), and therefore calls upon the Levites not to neglect the performance of their duty. ^3 he calls the Levites, addressing them in kindly language; cf. Prov. i. 8, etc. v$fl in Niph. occurs only here, and denotes to avoid a thing from carelessness or laziness, — from TOV. to draw forth; Job xxvii. 8. On ver.

Vers. 12-19. This address was heard with gladness. The Levites present assembled their brethren, and set to work, after they had all sanctified themselves, to purify the temple. In vers. 12-14 fourteen names are mentioned as those of the audience, viz.: two Levites of each of the great families of Kohath, Merari, and Gershon; two of the family of Elizaphan, i.e. Elzaphan the son of Uzziel, the son of Kohath, Ex. vi. 18, who in the time of Moses was prince of the family of Kohath, Num. iii. 30; and then two Levites of the descendants of Asaph (of the family of Gershon); two of Heman's descendants (of the family of Kohath); and two of Jeduthun's (of the family of Merari): see on 1 Chron. vi. 18-32. Of these names, Mahath, Eden, and Jehiel occur again in chap. xxxi. 13-15; several others, Joah ben Zimmah and Kish ben Abdi, have occurred already in the genealogy, 1 Chron. vi. 5 f. and ver. 29, for in the various families the same name often repeats itself. — Ver. 15. These fourteen heads of the various families and branches of Levi assembled their brethren (the other Levites who dwelt in Jerusalem); then they all sanctified themselves, and went forward, according to the command of the king, with the work of cleansing the temple. niiT1 'H213 belongs to 'on rn>'£3, according to the command of the king, which was founded upon the words of Jahve, i.e. upon the commands of Moses' law; cf. xxx. 12. — Ver. 16. The priests went into the inner part of the house of the Lord (into the holy place, probably also into the most holy place) to cleanse it, and removed all the uncleanness which was there into the court, whence the Levites carried it out into the valley of the brook Kidron (n^n, out of the precincts of the temple). The Levites were forbidden by the law to enter the holy place, and this command was strictly observed. Of what nature the uncleannesses were which the priests found in the holy place

('?*?) cannot be accurately ascertained. Owing to the prevalence of idolatry under Ahaz, vessels, e.g. sacrificial bowls, which were used in the worship, may have come into the holy place; and besides, all vessels of the holy place would require to be cleaned, and their filth removed. The closing of the temple doors (xxviii. 24) occurred only in the last year of Ahaz, while idolatry had been practised from the beginning of his reign. On the Kidron, see on 2 Kings xxiii. 4. — Ver. 17. The duration of the purification. On the first day of the first month they commenced with the purification of the courts; on the eighth day of the same month they came to the porch of Jahve, and with it began the purification of the temple building. This lasted eight days more, so that the work was finished on the sixteenth day of the first month. — Ver. 18 f. At the end of this business they made their report to the king. " All the vessels which King Ahaz had thrown away, i.e. made worthy of rejection," are the copper altar of burnt-offering, the brazen sea, and the lavers upon the bases (2 Kings xvi. 14, 17). ^3n? we have prepared, is a shorter form of ^"?n; cf. Gesen. Grarnm. § 72. 5, and J. Olshausen, liebr. Grammat. S. 565. The altar of Jahve is the altar of burnt-offering; cf. ver. 21.

Vers. 20-30. The re-dedication of the temple by offering sacrifices.— Ver. 20. Probably on the very next morning Hezekiah wrent with the princes (heads) of the city into the house of the Lord, and brought seven bullocks, seven rams, and seven lambs for a burnt-offering, and seven he-goats for a sin-offering, " for the kingdom, for the sanctuary, and for Judah," i.e. as expiation for and consecration of the kingdom, sanctuary, and people. These sacrifices were offered by the priests according to the prescription of the law of Moses, vers. 22-24. The burntofferings are first named, as in the sacrificial Torah in Lev. i.-vL, although the offering of the sin-offering preceded that of the burnt-offering. The laying on of hands, too, is mentioned only with the sin-offering, ver. 23, although according to Lev. i. 4 the same ceremony was gone through with the burnt-offerings; but that is not because a confession of sin was probably made during the laying on of hands, as Bertheau conjectures, adducing Lev. xvi. 21, for from that passage no such conclusion can be drawn. The ceremony is mentioned only in the one case to emphasize the fact that the king and the assembly (the latter, of course, by their representatives) laid their hands upon the sacrificial beasts, because the atonement was, according to the king's words, to be for all Israel. "All Israel" are projbably not only all the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah, but Israelites in general (the twelve tribes), for whom the temple in Jerusalem was the only lawful sanctuary. E^ HK N^n signifies to bring the blood to the altar for an atonement, in the manner prescribed in Lev. iv. 30, 34. — Ver. 25. Hezekiah, moreover, restored again the music with which the Levites were wont to accompany the sacrificial act, and which David, with the prophets Gad and Nathan, had arranged. The 1 consec. with lOJS expresses the secution of thought, and ver. 25 corresponds to the 21st verse. First, the beasts to be sacrificed were prepared for the sacrifice, and then to the Levites was committed the performance of instrumental and vocal music during the sacrificial act. In reference to the musical instruments, see on 1 Chron. xv. 16. The Levites were appointed to sing, " according to the command of David;" but this command was 1J3, by interposition of Jahve, viz. given by His prophets. David had consequently made this arrangement at the divine suggestion, coming to him through the prophets. With l^Wl rj?h cf. 1 Chron. xxi. 9. WttM T3 is in explanatory apposition to niif T2, and VWaa is not to be referred to David, although David is called in viii. 14 " man of God." — Ver. 26. Ttt v3 are the musical instruments the use of which David introduced into the public worship; see 1 Chron. xxiii. 5. — The first clause, ver. 27, " And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt-offering upon the altar," is repeated from ver. 21 to form a connection for what follows: "At the time when the sacrificial act began, the song of Jahve commenced," i.e. the praising of Jahve by song and instrumental music (nirf "W — nin^ W, 1 Chron. xxv. 7), and (the blowing) of trumpets, " and that under the leading (*T hv) of the instruments of David." This is to be understood as denoting that the blowing of the trumpets regulated itself by the playing of the stringed instruments,— suited itself to the song and the music of the stringed instruments. — Ver. 28. During the offering of the burnt-offering, until it was ended, the whole congregation stood worshipping; and the song of the Levites, accompanied by the music of the stringed instruments and the trumpet-blowing of the priests, continued. Tl^P "M$?» u the song was singing," stands for " the body of singers sang;" and the trumpets also stand for the trumpeters. — Ver. 29. At the conclusion of the sacrificial act

(Tfhyrb is a contraction for rfoyn rn?gn?, ver. 27) the king and all who were present knelt and worshipped. — Ver. 30. The king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words (psalms) of David and of Asaph; and they sang praise with joy, and bowed themselves and worshipped. This verse does not mean that the Levites began to sing psalms at the king's command only after the sacrificial act and the instrumental music (ver. 27 f.) had been finished, but it forms a comprehensive conclusion of the description of the sacrificial solemnities. The author of the Chronicle considered it necessary to make express mention of the praising of God in psalms, already implicite involved in the TjiPb "W#[J, ver. 28, and to remark that the Levites also, at the conclusion of the song of praise, knelt and worshipped. Asaph is here called nth, as Jeduthun (Ethan) is in chap. xxxv. 15, and Heman, 1 Chron. xxv. 5.

Vers. 31-36. The sacrifice of thank-offerings and praise-offerings and voluntary burnt-offerings. — Hezekiah introduces this, the concluding act of this religious festival, with the words, il Now have ye filled your hand to the Lord," i.e. you have again consecrated yourselves to the service of the Lord (cf. Ex. xxxii. 39 and the commentary on Lev. vii. 37 f.); " come near, and bring sacrifices and thank-offerings into the house of the Lord." The words " Now have ye filled " are regarded by the commentators (Clericus, Eamb., Bertheau, etc.) as addressed to the priests; while the following '131 WW are supposed to be directed to the congregation, and Clericus and Kamb. consequently supply before ^3, vos vero, Israelite?. The summons ^3rn Vtfa can certainly only be addressed to the congregation, as is shown by the words 5>nj3n ^Wj and the congregation brought, which correspond to the summons. But the supplying of vos veno before VB\ is quite arbitrary. If in Wl other persons are addressed than those to whom the king formerly said, " Now have ye filled your hands," the change in the persons addressed would have been intimated by mention of the person, or at least by EJ^I, u but ye." As the two clauses at present stand, they must be spoken to the same persons, viz. the whole assembled congregation, including the priests and Levites. We must therefore suppose that the phrase v T N?E>, which in its narrower sense denotes only the consecration of the priests for service at the altar (see on Lev. vii. 37), is here used in a wider sense, and transferred to the whole congregation. They, by their participation in the consecratory offerings, by laying on of hands and worship during the sacrificial act, had consecrated themselves anew to the service of the Lord as their God, and had anew made a covenant with the Lord (ver. 10); so that only the sacrificial meal was wanting to the completion of this celebration of the covenant, and for this the offering of sacrifices was requisite. The collocation aTOT nnini is strange. DTQT are aWK* DTDT, sacrifices of peace-offering, also called briefly aW2\ Of these, in the law, three species — praise-offerings (rrilin), vowed offerings, and voluntary offerings — are distinguished (Lev. vii. 11, 16). rrilifi therefore denotes a species of the sacrifices or peace-offerings, the praise or thankofferings in the stricter sense; and ni"rirn must be taken as explicative: sacrifices, and that (or namely) praise-offerings. 3HJT731 2?, and every one who was heartily willing, (brought) burntofferings; i.e.j all who felt inwardly impelled to do so, brought of their own accord burnt-offerings. — Ver. 32. The number of the burnt-offerings brought spontaneously by the congregation was very large: 70 bullocks, 100 rams, and 200 lambs. — Ver. 33. B^i?™? and the consecrated, i.e. the beasts brought as thankoffering (cf. xxxv. 13, Neh. x. 34), were 600 bullocks and 3000 small cattle (sheep and goats). — In vers. 34-36 the account closes with some remarks upon these sacrifices and the festal solemnity. Ver. 34. But there were too few priests, and they were not able (so that they were not able) to flay all the burnt-offerings; and their brethren the Levites helped them till the work was ended (i.e. the flaying), and until the priests had sanctified themselves. In the case of private burnt-offerings the flaying of the beast was the business of the sacrificer (Lev. i. 6); while in the case of those offered on solemn occasions in the name of the congregation it was the priest's duty, and in it, as the work was not of a specifically priestly character, the Levites might assist. The burnt-offerings which are spoken of in ver. 34 are not merely those voluntarily offered (ver. 34), but also the consecratory burntofferings (vers. 22, 27). Only ver. 35 refers to the voluntary offerings alone. a For the Levites had been more upright to sanctify themselves than the priests." i? *ib^ rectiores animo, had endeavoured more honestly. Perhaps the priests had taken more part in the idolatrous worship of Ahaz than the Levites, which would be quite accounted for, as Kueper, das Priesterth. des A. Bundes (1870), S. 216, remarks, by their relation to the court of the king, and their dependence upon it. They consequently showed themselves more slack even in the purification than the Levites, who forte etiam idololatricis sacris minus contaminati et impediti erant (Ramb.). — Ver. 35 gives yet another reason why the Levites had to help the priests: u And also the burnt-offerings were in abundance, with the fat of the peaceofferings, and the drink-offerings for every burnt -offering." The priests could not accomplish the flaying for this reason also, that they had, besides, to see to the proper altar service (sprinkling of the blood, and burning of the sacrifices upon the altar), which taxed their strength, since, besides the consecratory burntofferings, there were the voluntary burnt-offerings (ver. 31), which were offered along with the thank-offerings and the drinkofferings, which belonged to the burnt-offerings of Num. xv. 1-15. Thus the service of the house of Jahve was arranged, rniay is not the purification and dedication of the temple (Berth.), but only the sacrificial service, or rather all that concerned the regular temple worship, which had decayed under Ahaz, and had at length wholly ceased. — Ver. 36. Hezekiah and the whole people rejoiced because of it. P??n?V9 over that which God had prepared for the people (by the purification of the temple and the restoration of the Jahve-worship), not "because God had made the people ready" (Ramb., Berth.). The article with f"on represents the relative pronoun 1B*N; see on 1 Chron. xxvi. 28. The joy was heightened by the fact that the thing was done suddenly.

Chap. xxx. The celebration of the passover. — Vers. 1-12. The preparations for this celebration. — Ver. 1. Hezekiah invited all Israel and Judah to it; " and he also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasseh," the two chief tribes of the northern kingdom, which here, as is manifest from vers. 5, 10, are named instar omnium. But the whole sentence serves only to elucidate?K"jfe^v3?V TO), To all Israel (of the ten tribes) he sent the invitation, and this he did by letters. The verse contains a general statement as to the matter, which is further described in what follows. — Ver. 2. The king consulted with his princes and the whole assembly in Jerusalem, i.e. with the community of the capital assembled in their representatives for this purpose, as to keeping the passover in the second month. This was (Num. ix. 6-13) allowed to those who, by uncleanness or by absence on a distant journey, were prevented from holding the feast at the lawful time, the 14th of the first month. Both these reasons existed in this case (ver. 3): the priests had not sufficiently sanctified themselves, and the people had not assembled in Jerusalem, sc. at the legal time in the first month. *TOp, contracted from VrrI"l^? that which is sufficient, is usually interpreted, "not in sufficient number" (Rashi, Vulg.? Berth., etc.); but the reference of the word to the number cannot be defended, ^u? denotes only ad sufficientiam, and means not merely that the priests had not sanctified themselves in such numbers as were required for the slaughtering and offering of the paschal lambs, but that the priesthood in general was not yet sufficiently consecrated, many priests not having at that time wholly renounced idolatry and consecrated themselves anew. Nor does the passage signify, as Bertheau says it does, "that although the purification of the temple was completed only on the sixteenth day of the first month (xxix. 17), the passover would yet have been celebrated in the first month, though perhaps not on the legal fourteenth day, had not a further postponement become necessary for the reasons here given; " for there is nothing said in the text of a " further postponement." That is just as arbitrarily dragged into the narrative as the idea that Hezekiah ever intended to hold the passover on another day than the legal fourteenth day of the month, which is destitute of all support, and even of probability. The postponement of the passover until the second month in special circumstances was provided for by the law, but the transfer of the celebration to another day of the month was not. Such a transfer would have been an illegal and arbitrary innovation, which we cannot suppose Hezekiah capable of. Rather it is clear from the consultation, that the king and his princes and the congregations were persuaded that the passover could be held only on the fourteenth day of the month; for they did not consult as to the day, but only as to the month, upon the basis of the law: if not in the first, then at any rate in the second month. The day was, for those consulting, so definitely fixed that it was never discussed, and is not mentioned at all in the record. If this were so, then the consultation must have taken place in the first month before the fourteenth day, at a time when the lawful day for the celebration was not yet past. This is implied in the words, " for they could not hold it at that time." K^in nyn is the first month, in contrast to " in the second month; " not this or that day of the month. Now, since the reason given for their not being able to hold it in the first month is that the priests had not sufficiently purified themselves, and the people had not assembled themselves in Jerusalem, we learn with certainty from these reasons that it is not a celebration of the passover in the first year of Hezekiah's reign which is here treated of, as almost all commentators think.1 In the whole narrative there is nothing to favour such a supposition, except (1) the circumstance that the account of this celebration is connected by 1 consec. (in "?&*}) with the preceding purification of the temple and restoration of the Jahve-worship which took place in the first year of Hezekiah's reign; and (2) the statement that the priests had not sufficiently sanctified themselves, ver. 3, which, when compared with that in chap. xxix. 34, that the number of priests who had sanctified themselves was not sufficient to flay the beasts for sacrifice, makes it appear as if the passover had been celebrated immediately after the consecration of the temple; and (3) the mention of the second month in ver. 2, which, taken in connection with the mention of the first month in xxix. 3, 17, seems to imply that the second month of the first year of Hezekiah's reign is meant. But of these three apparent reasons none is convincing.

The use of 1 consec. to connect the account of the celebration of the passover with the preceding, without the slightest hint that the celebration took place in another (later) year, is fully accounted for by the fact that in no case is the year in which any event of Hezekiah's twenty-nine years' reign occurred stated in the Chronicle. In chap, xxxii. 1, Sennacherib's invasion of Judah is introduced only by the indefinite formula, " and after these events," though it happened in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah; while the arrangements as to the public worship made by this king, and recorded in chap, xxxi., belong to the first years of his reign. Only in the case of the restoration of the Jahve-worship is it remarked, xxix. 3, that Hezekiah commenced it in the very first year of his reign, because that was important in forming an estimate of the spirit of his reign; but the statement of the year in which his other acts were done had not much bearing upon the practical aim of the chronicler. Nor does the reason given for the transfer of the celebration of the passover to the second month, viz. that the priests had not

1 Cf. the elaborate discussion of this question in Caspari, Beitrr. zur Einl. in das B. Jesaja, S. 109 ff.

sufficiently sanctified themselves, prove that the celebration took place in the first year of ITezekiah. Daring the sixteen years' reign of the idolater Ahaz, the priesthood had beyond doubt fallen very low, — become morally sunk, so that the majority of them would not immediately make haste to sanctify themselves for the Jahve-worship. Finally, the retrospective reference to xxix. 3, 17, would certainly incline us to take *3#n Bhha to mean the second month of the first year; but yet it cannot be at once taken in that sense, unless the reasons given for the transfer of the celebration of the passover to the second month point to the first year. But these reasons, so far from doing so, are rather irreconcilable with that view. The whole narrative, chap. xxix. and xxx., gives us the impression that Hezekiah had not formed the resolution to hold a passover to which the whole of Israel and Judah, all the Israelites of the ten tribes as well as the citizens of his kingdom-, should be invited before or during the purification of the temple; at least he did not consult with his princes and the heads of Jerusalem at that time. According to xxix. 20, the king assembled the princes of the city only after the report had been made to him, on the completion of the purification of the temple on the sixteenth day of the first month, when he summoned them to the dedication of the purified temple by solemn sacrifice. But this consecratory solemnity occupied several days. The great number of burnt-offerings, — first seven bullocks, seven rams, and seven lambs, besides the sin-offering for the consecration of the temple (xxix. 21); then, after the completion of these, the voluntary burnt-offering of the congregation, consisting of 70 bullocks, 100 rams, and 200 lambs, together with and exclusive of the thank-offerings (xxix. 32), — could not possibly be burnt on one day on one altar of burnt-offering, and consequently the sacrificial meal could not well be held on the same day. If, then, the king consulted with the princes and the assembly about the passover after the conclusion of or during celebration, — say in the time between the seventeenth and the twentieth day, — it could not be said that the reason of the postponement of the passover was that the priests had not yet sufficiently sanctified themselves, and the people were not assembled in Jerusalem: it would only have been said that the fourteenth day of the first month was already past. Caspari has therefore rightly regarded this as decisive. But besides that, the invitation to all Israel (of the ten tribes) to this passover is more easily explained, if the celebration of it took place after the breaking up of the kingdom of the ten tribes by the Assyrians, than if it was before that catastrophe, in the time of Hosea, the last king of that kingdom. Though King Hosea may not have been so evil as some of his predecessors, yet it is said of him also, " he did that which was evil in the sight of Jahve" (2 Kings xvii. 2). Would Hezekiah have ventured, so long as Hosea reigned, to invite his subjects to a passover at Jerusalem? and would Hosea have permitted the invitation, and not rather have repelled it as an interference with his kingdom? Further, in the invitation, the captivity of the greater part of the ten tribes is far too strongly presupposed to allow us to imagine that the captivity there referred to is the carrying away of several tribes by Tiglath-pileser. The words, u the escaped who are left to you from the hand of the king of Assyria " (ver. 6), presuppose more than the captivity of the two and a half trans-Jordanic tribes and the Naphtalites; not merely because of the plural, the u kings of Assur," but also because the remaining five and a half tribes were not at all affected by Tiglath-pileser's deportation, while there is no mention made of any being carried away by King Pul, nor is it a probable thing in itself; see on 1 Chron. v. 26. Finally, according to chap. xxxi. 1, the Israelites who had been assembled in Jerusalem for the passover immediately afterwards destroyed the pillars, Astartes, high places, and altars, not merely in all Judah and Benjamin, but also in Ephraim and Manasseh (consequently even in the capital of the kingdom of the ten tribes), " unto completion," i.e. completely, leaving nothing of them remaining. Is it likely that King Hosea, and the other inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes who had not gone to the passover, but had laughed at and mocked the messengers of Hezekiah (ver. 10), would have quietly looked on and permitted this? All these things are incomprehensible if the passover wTas held in the first year of Hezekiah, and make it impossible to accept that view.

Moreover, even the preparation for this passover demanded more time than from the seventeenth day of the first month to the fourteenth day of the second. The calling of the whole people together, u from Dan to Beersheba" (ver. 5), could not be accomplished in three weeks. Even if Hezekiah's messengers may have gone throughout the land and returned home again in that time, we yet cannot suppose that those invited, especially those of the ton tribes, could at once commence their journey, so as to appear in Jerusalem at the time of the feast. In consequence of all these things, we must still remain stedfastly of the opinion already expressed in the Commentary on the Books of Kings (vol. ii. p. 81 ff.), that this passover was not held in the first year of Hezekiah, only a week or two after the restoration of the Jahve-worship according to the law had been celebrated. Bnt if it was not held in the first year, then it cannot have been held before the ruin of the kingdom of the ten tribes, in the sixth year of Hezekiah. In the third year of Hezekiah, Slialmaneser marched upon Samaria, and besieged the capital of the kingdom of the ten tribes. But during the occupation of that kingdom by the Assyrians, Hezekiah could not think of inviting its inhabitants to a passover in Jerusalem. He can have resolved upon that only after the Assyrians had again left the country, Samaria having been conquered, and the Israelites carried away. " But after an end had been thoroughly made of the kingdom of the house of Israel, Hezekiah might regard himself as the king of all Israel, and in this character might invite the remnant of the ten tribes, as his subjects, to the passover (cf. Jer. xl. 1); and he might cherish the hope, as the Israelitish people had been just smitten down by this last frightful catastrophe, that its remaining members would humble themselves under the mighty hand of God, which had been laid on them solemnly, and turning to Him, would comply with the invitation; while before the ruin of the Israelitish kingdom, in inviting the Israelites of the ten tribes, he would have been addressing the subjects of a foreign king" (Caspari, S. 125). And with this view, the statement, xxx. 10, that the messengers of Hezekiah were laughed at by the majority of the Israelites, in the land of Ephraim and Manasseh unto Zebulun, may be easily reconciled. 11 If we only look," as Caspari pertinently says in answer to this objection, 6t at the conduct of those who remained in Judea after the destruction of Jerusalem, and who soon afterwards fled to Egypt to Jeremiah (Jer. xlii. 44), we will understand how the majority of the people of the kingdom of the ten tribes, who remained behind after the deportation by Shalmaneser, could be hardened and blinded enough to laugh at and mock the messengers of Hezekiah."

But if Hezekiah formed the resolution of holding such a passover festival only after the destruction of the kingdom of

Israel, it may perhaps be asked why he did not take the matter into consideration early enough to allow of the festival being held at the legal time, i.e. in the first month? To this we certainly cannot give an assured answer, because, from the reasons given for the delay of the passover to the second month (ver. 3), we can only gather that, when the king consulted with the princes in the matter, there wras no longer sufficient time lo carry out the celebration in the manner proposed at the legal time. But it is quite possible that Hezekiah resolved to invite the remnant of the ten tribes to the next passover, only in the beginning of the year, when the Assyrians had withdrawn from the land, and that in the consultation about the matter the two circumstances mentioned in ver. 3 were decisive for the postponement of the feast to the second month. It became clear, on the one hand, that the whole priesthood was not yet sufficiently prepared for it; and on the other, that the summoning of the people could not be accomplished before the 14th Nisan, so as to allow of the feast being held in the way proposed at the legal time; and accordingly it was decided, in order to avoid the postponement of the matter for a whole year, to take advantage of the expedient suggested by the law, and to hold the feast in the second month. From ver. 14 and chap. xxxi. 1 we gather that at that time there were still standing in Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah and Benjamin, Mazzeboth, Asherim, Bamoth, and altars; consequently, that the Baal-worship had not yet been extirpated. The continuance of the Baal-worship, and that on the high places in Jerusalem and Judah, until the sixth or seventh year of Hezekiah's reign, will not much astonish us, if we consider that even before Ahaz the most pious kings had not succeeded in quite suppressing worship on the high places on the part of the people. The reopening of the temple, and of the Jahve-worship in it, Hezekiah might undertake and carry out in the beginning of his reign, because he had all those of the people who were well inclined upon his side. But it was otherwise with the altars on the high places, to which the people from ancient times had been firmly attached. These could not be immediately destroyed, and may have been again restored here and there after they had been destroyed, even in the corners of the capital. Many Levitic priests had, to a certainty, taken part in this worship on high places, since, as a rule, it was not heathen idols, but Jahve, to whom sacrifice was offered upon the high places, though it was done in an illegal way. Such Levitic priests of the high places could not, even if they had not practised idolatry, straightway take part in a passover to be celebrated to Jahve according to the precepts of the law. They must first sanctify themselves by abandoning the worship on the high places, and earnestly turning to the Lord and to His law. Now, if the passover was to be a general one, the time necessary for this sanctification of themselves must be granted to these priests. For the sanctification of these priests, and for the invitation of all Israel to the festival, the time up to the fourteenth of the second month was sufficient, and the king's proposal was consequently approved of by the whole assembly. — Ver. 5. They established the matter (T31 1TDJ£, Vulg. rightly, according to the sense, decreveruni), to make proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beersheba to Dan (cf. Judg. xx. 1), that they should come to keep the passover. 3hj Sv *3, for not in multitude had they celebrated it, as it is written. These words were interpreted as early as by Rashi thus: they had not celebrated it for a long time according to the precepts of the law, and were referred to the time of the division of the kingdom. But to this Berth, has rightly objected that the use of TO of time is unusual, and has correctly referred the words to the Israelites: they had not celebrated it in multitude, i.e. in the assembly of the whole people, as the law required. The words consequently tell us nothing as to the length of time during which it had not been celebrated in multitude: as to that, see ver. 26. Still less does it follow from the words that under Hezekiah, after the restoration of the temple worship, the passover had not been yearly held. — Ver. 6. a The runners (whether soldiers of the royal body-guard, cf. xii. 10, or other royal couriers, as Esth. iii. 13, 15, cannot be determined) went with letters from the hand of the king,... and according to the commandment of the king to say." To the written invitation of the king and his princes they were to add words of exhortation: " Turn again to Jahve,... that He may return (turn Himself) to the remnant which remains to you from the hand of the kings of Assyria," i.e. of Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser. — Ver. 7. Be not like your fathers, your brethren, i.e. those carried away by Tiglath and Shalmaneser. On niSKv DW cf. xxix. 8. — Ver. 8. Be not stiff-necked; cf. 2 Kings xvii. 14. u Give the hand to the Lord," i.e. here, not submit yourselves, as 1 Chron. xxix. 24, construed with rinn; it denotes the giving of the hand as a pledge of fidelity, as in 2 Kings x. 15, Ezra x. 19, Ezek. xvii. 18. — Ver. 9. If ye return to the Lord, your brethren and your sons (who are in exile) shall be for mercy, i.e. shall find mercy of them who carried them away, and for returning, i.e, and they shall return into this land. 'W pun ^ cf. Ex. xxxiv. 6. — Ver. 10. The couriers wTent about from city to city in the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, even unto Zebulun; but the people laughed to scorn and mocked at the summons to return, and the invitation to the passover festival. The words " from city to city" are not inconsistent with the view that the kingdom of Israel had already been ruined. The Assyrians had not blotted out all the cities from the face of the land, nor carried away every one of the inhabitants to the last man, but had been satisfied with the capture of the fortresses and their partial or complete demolition, and carried only the flower of the inhabitants away. No doubt also many had saved themselves from deportation by flight to inaccessible places, who then settled again and built in the cities and villages which had not been completely destroyed, or perhaps had been completely spared, after the enemy had withdrawn. From the statement, moreover, that the couriers passed through the land of Ephraim and Manasseh unto Zebulun, no proof can be derived that the messengers did not touch upon the domain of the tribes led away captive by Tiglath-pileser (Naphtali and the trans-Jordanic land), but only visited those districts of the country which formed the kingdom of Israel as it continued to exist after Tiglath-pileser. If that were so, it would follow that the kingdom had not then been destroyed. But the enumeration is not complete, as is manifest from the fact that, according to vers. 11 and 18, men of the tribes of Asher and Issachar came to Jerusalem in compliance with the invitation; and the domain of Asher extended to the northern frontier of Canaan. If we further take it into consideration, that, according to the resolution of the king and his princes, all Israel, from Beersheba on the southern frontier to Dan on the northern, were to be invited, it is not to be doubted that the couriers went through the whole land. — Ver. 12. Also upon. Judah came the hand of God, to give them one heart, to do... The phrase 3 njvn mrp T has usually a punitive signification (cf. Ex. ix. 3; Deut. ii. 15, etc.), but here it is the helping hand of God. God wrought powerfully upon Judah to make them of one mind. ffiiT "1313 as in xxix. 15.

assembly of the people at Jerusalem to celebrate the feast became a great congregation. — Ver. 14. Before the slaying of the passover, in order to purify and sanctify the city for the feast, they removed the (illegal) altars and places for offering incense which had been erected under Ahaz (xxviii. 24), and threw them into the Kidron (xxix. 16). Jti"ltSj50 is here a substantive: places for incense-offerings (cf. Ew. § 160, e\ and denotes altars intended for the offering of the J"Hpi?. — Yer. 15. When they slaughtered the passover on the 14th, the Levites and priests also were ashamed, i.e. had sanctified themselves under the influence of a feeling of shame, and offered the sacrifice in the house of the Lord; i.e. they performed the sacrificial functions incumbent upon them at the passover in the temple, as is stated more in detail in ver. 16. The clause 'W EMfl3«?] is a circumstantial clause, and the statement points back to ver. 3. The mention of Levites along with the priests here is worthy of remark, since in xxix. 34 it is said that at the celebration of the dedication of the temple the Levites had sanctified themselves more zealously than the priests. But these two statements do not contradict each other. In chap. xxix. 34 it is the Levites and priests then present in or dwelling in Jerusalem who are spoken of; here, on the contrary, it is the priests and the Levites of the whole kingdom of Judah. Even though, at the former period, the Levites were more zealous in sanctifying themselves for the dedication of the temple, yet there must certainly have been many Levites in Judah, who, like many of the priests, did not immediately purify themselves from their defilement by the worship in the high places, and were only impelled and driven to sanctify themselves for the service of the Lord by the zeal of the people who had come to Jerusalem to hold the passover. — Ver. 16. Standing in their place, according to their right, i.e. according to the prescribed arrangement (see on 1 Chron. vi. 17), the priests sprinkled the blood (of the paschal lambs) from the hand of the Levites, they handing it to them. This was not the rule: in the case of the paschal lamb, the father of the family who slew the lamb had to hand the blood to the priest, that it might be sprinkled upon the altar; here the Levites did it for the reasons given in ver. 17. Because many in the assembly had not sanctified themselves, the Levites presided over the slaying of the paschal lambs for every one who was unclean, to sanctify (the lambs) to the Lord (see also on xxxv. 6, 11). ri2"]? stat. constr. before the noun with a preposition, stands as neuter substantively: there was a multitude in the assembly who... ftsn in ver. 18 is to be taken in a similar manner, not as an adverb (Berth.). DJI^tt? HZ1 'lil is in apposition to E^n JV2"iD, a multitude of people, viz.: Many of Ephraim... had not purified themselves, but ate the passover in an illegal fashion, not according to the precept (cf. Num. ix. 6). This clause explains how it happened that the Levites presided at the slaying of the passover for those who had not sanctified themselves, i.e. they caught the blood and gave it to the priests. Had this been done by persons levitically unclean, the expiatory sacrificial blood wTould have been defiled. The eating of the paschal lamb or the participation in the passover meal was indeed allowed only to the clean; but yet it was not so holy an act, i.e. did not bring the people into such immediate contact with God, who was present at His altar, that those wTho were not clean might not, under some circumstances, be admitted to it. Here it wTas allowed, for Hezekiah had prayed for them that God might forgive the transgression of the law. — Ver. 18 ends, according to the Masoretic verse-division, with the preposition 13?3; but that division seems merely to have arisen from ignorance of the construction pan i33p"?3? of the fact that *TO stands before a relative sentence without TB^ like?X in 1 Chron. xv. 12, and is certainly wrong. If we separate "W3 from what follows, we must, with Aben Ezra, supply n?x? and make?3\j (ver. 19) refer to Hezekiah, both being equally inadmissible. Rightly, therefore, the LXX., Vulg., and also Kimchi, with the majority of commentators, have given up this division of the verses as incorrect, and connected the words in this way: May the good Jahve atone, i.e. forgive every one who has fixed his heart (cf. xii. 14) to seek God, Jahve, the God of his fathers, but not in accordance with the purity of the sanctuary. This intercession of Hezekiah's is worthy of remark, not only because it expresses the conviction that upright seeking of the Lord, which proceeds from the heart, is to be more highly estimated than strict observance of the letter of the law, but also because Hezekiah presumes that those who had come out of Ephraim, etc., to the passover had fixed their heart to seek Jahve, the God of their fathers, but had not been in a position to comply with the precept of the law, i.e. to purify themselves up to the day appointed for the passover. — Ver. 20. God heard this intercession, and healed the people. N£"], sanare^ is not to be explained by supposing, with Bertheau, that first sickness, and then even death, were to be expected as the results of transgression of the law, according to Lev. xv. 31, and that the people might be already regarded as sick, as being on the point of becoming so. The use of the word is explained by the fact that sin was regarded as a spiritual disease, so that K3"i is to be understood of healing the soul (as Ps. xli. 5), or the transgression (Hos. xiv. 5; Jer. iii. 22). — Ver. 21. And the Israelites that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness; and the Levites and priests praised the Lord day by day, singing to the Lord fflirt fy ^32^ u with instruments of power to the Lord/' i.e. with which they ascribed power to the Lord; or, to express it more clearly, which they played to the praise of the power of the Lord. The stringed instruments played by the Levites, and the trumpets blown by the priests, to accompany the -psalm-singing, are meant. The singing of praise in connection with the sacrificial service took place on the seventh day of the feast. — Ver. 22. Hezekiah spoke to the heart of all the Levites, i.e. spoke encouraging words of acknowledgment to all the Levites, u who showed good understanding in regard to Jahve," i.e. not qui erant rerum divinarum peritiores aliosque instruere poterant, but, as Clericus has already said, those who had distinguished themselves by intelligent playing to the honour of the Lord. "And they ate" — not merely the Levites and priests, but all who took part in the festival — the festal sacrifices, seven days. The expression "WiftrrnK?2K, to hold the festal sacrificial meal, is formed after riDjsrrnN 73K? to eat the passover = the passover meal. This we gather from the following participial clause, " offering peace-offerings," of which the sacrificial meals were prepared. D^irup^ and acknowledged the Lord, the God of their fathers, rninn denotes here neither " to make confession of sin," nor " to approach with thank-offerings" (Berth.), but simply to acknowledge the Lord with heart and mouth, word and deed, or by prayer, praise, thanks, and offering of sacrifice.

Vers. 23-27. Prolongation of the festival for seven days more, and the conclusion of it. — Ver. 23 f. Since the king and the princes had given a very large number of beasts for sacrifice as thank-offerings, it was resolved to keep joy for other seven days, i.e. to keep them festally, with sacrificial meals. The expression &W ""TO, to hold or celebrate days, is similar to nDB nfcW, to hold the passover. nnrp^ is an adverbial accusative: in joy. For this resolution two reasons are given in ver. 24: 1. Hezekiah had given to the assembly 1000 bullocks and 7000 head of small cattle, and the princes had given 1000 bullocks and 10,000 head of small cattle besides; so that there was more than they could use during the seven days of the Mazzoth feast. Bertheau incorrectly supposes that these wTere u rich gifts for further sacrificial feasts." The gifts were bestowed for the Mazzoth festival, but were so plentiful that they sufficed for another festival of seven days. &*!»!?, like noVlfl, denotes to bestow, i.e. to present beasts, etc., with the design that they should be used as sacrifices; cf. xxxv. 7. 2. The second reason: " priests also had sanctified themselves in multitude," so as to be able to carry on the service at the altar, even with such numerous sacrifices, refers back to vers. 15 and 3. — Vers. 25-27. Concluding remarks on this festival. There took part in it (1) the whole congregation of Judah, and the priests and Levites; (2) the whole congregation of those who had come out of Israel (the ten tribes); (3) the strangers, both those who came out of the land of Israel and those dwelling in Judah. — Ver. 26. The joy was great, for there had not been the like in Jerusalem since the days of Solomon. " The meaning is, that this feast could be compared only with the feast at the dedication of the temple in the time of Solomon, chap. vii. 1-10, in respect to its length, the richness of the sacrificial gifts, the multitude of those who participated, and the joyous feeling it caused" (Berth.). The feast at the dedication of the temple had been a festival of fourteen days; for the feast of tabernacles, which lasted seven days, came immediately after the proper dedicatory feast, and since the time of Solomon all the tribes had never been united at a feast in Jerusalem. — Ver. 27. At the end the Levitic priests dismissed the people with the blessing (the ] before &^?p in some MSS., and which the LXX., Vulg., and Syr. also have, is a copyist's gloss brought from ver. 25; cf. against it, chap, xxiii. 18), and the historian adds, u Their voice was heard, and their prayer came to His holy dwelling-place, to heaven." This conclusion he draws from the divine blessing having been upon the festival; traceable partly in the zeal which the people afterwards showed for the public worship in the temple (chap, xxxi.), partly in the deliverance of Judah and Jerusalem from the attack of the Assyrian Sennacherib (chap, xxxii.).

Chap. xxxi. Destruction of the idols and the altars of the high places. Provisions for the ordering and maintenance of the temple worship, and the attendants upon it. — Ver. 1. At the conclusion of the festival, all the Israelites who had been present at the feast (DWXDan!>fcnfcyb| to be understood as in xxx. 21) went into the cities of Judah, and destroyed all the idols, high places, and altars not only in Judah and Benjamin (the southern kingdom), but also in Ephraim and Manasseh (the domain of the ten tribes), utterly (fljdf^ft cf. xxiv. 10), and only then returned each to his home; cf. 2 Kings xviii. 4.

Vers. 2-21. Restoration of order in the public worship, and of the temple revenues and those of the priests. — Ver. 2. Hezekiah appointed the courses of the priests and Levites according to their courses, each according to the measure of his service (cf. Num. vii. 5, 7), viz. the priests and Levites (% 'fw are subordinated to fi^K in apposition by p), for burnt-offerings and thank-offerings, to serve (to wait upon the worship), and to praise and thank (by song and instrumental music) in the gates of the camp of Jahve, i.e. in the temple and court of the priests; see on 1 Chron. ix. 18 f. — Ver. 3. And the portion of the king from his possession was for the burnt-offerings, etc.; that is, the material for the burnt-offerings which are commanded in Num. xxviii. and xxix. the king gave from his possessions, which are enumerated in chap, xxxii. 27-29. — Vers. 4-8. The priests and Levites received their maintenance from the first-fruits (Ex. xxiii. 19; Num. xviii. 12; Deut. xxvi. 2) and the tithes, which the people had to pay from the produce of their cattle-breeding and their agriculture (Lev. xxvii. 30-33, cf. with Num. xviii. 21-24). Hezekiah commanded the people, viz. the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to give this portion to the Levites and priests, that they might hold themselves firmly to the law of Jahve, i.e. might devote themselves to the duties laid upon them by the law, the attendance upon the worship, without being compelled to labour for their subsistence; cf. Neh. xiii. 10 ff. — Ver. 5. When the word (the royal command) went forth (spread abroad), the Israelites brought1 in abundance the first-fruits which had been assigned to the priests (xviii. 12 f.), and the tithes, which were paid to the whole tribe of Levi (Num. xviii. 21-24). btOfc* *J3, ver. 6, are not the inhabitants of the northern kingdom, but the Israelites who had emigrated from that kingdom into Judah (as xxx. 25, xi. 16, x. 17). D*Bhj? nfc>gD, the tenth from the holy gifts which were consecrated to Jahve, is surprising, since in the law, Num. xviii. 8 ff., it is not the tenth of the consecrated gifts which is spoken of, but only D^jjMl rri»Vin (Num. xviii. 19). Proceeding upon the assumption that all DWp which were consecrated to Jahve were given over to the tribe of Levi, Bertheau finds no correspondence between the law and the statement of our verse, that the tenth of the holy things was given, and points out that the LXX. seem to have read DWpni tyi instead of

DWp "OTD, without, however, himself deciding in favour of that reading. But the LXX. have rendered the words DWp "OTEl DWpEn by eircSe/cara alywv, xal rjylaa-av, and consequently cannot have read TJJJ for ">^ft, since in their translation eiriheKara corresponds to ~\&yn. But the deviation of the statement in our verse from the law, Num. xviii., arises partly from an incorrect or inexact interpretation of the provisions of the law, Num. xviii. 8 ff. In the law, DWp as such were not assigned to the tribe of Levi, or more correctly to the priests (Aaron and his sons), but only the DWirps? rriftVin, the heave-offerings of all the holy gifts of the sons of Israel, i.e. the pieces or parts of the sacrificial gifts of the Israelites which were not burnt upon the altar, consequently the greater part of the meal, and oil, and flesh of the oblations, the sin-offerings, the trespass-offerings, and of the peace-offerings, the wave-breast and wave-thigh, and whatever else was waved in wave-offerings; see on Num. xviii. 8 ff. These Therumoth of the consecrated gifts are in our verse designated BWp l^TO, because they were only a fragment of that which was consecrated to the Lord, just as the tenth was a fragment of the whole herd, and of the field produce. The statement of our verse, therefore, differs only in expression from the prescription of the law, but in substance it completely agrees with it. '"W fl^V Vft% and they made many heaps, i.e. they brought the first-fruits and tithes in heaps. — Ver. 7. In the third month, consequently immediately at the end of the grain harvest, they commenced to found the heaps (to lay the foundation of the heaps); and in the seventh month, i.e. at the end of the fruit and wine harvest, they completed them (the heaps). In the third month fell pentecost, or the harvest feast; in the seventh, the feast of tabernacles, after the gathering in of all the fruits. "riD'9 has Daehesh in D, because this verb in the imperf. assimilates its * like 3 to the second radical, and the infinitive is formed after the imperf.; cf. Ew. § 245, a. — Ver. 8. When Hezekiah and the priests saw these heaps, they praised the Lord and His people Israel.

The employment and storing of these gifts, vers. 9-19. — Ver. 9 f. Hezekiah questioned (^">T.) the priests and Levites concerning the heaps, i.e. not as to whether they were sufficient for the support of the priests and Levites, but as to how it happened that such masses had been heaped up. Thereupon Azariah the high priest (hardly the Azariah mentioned xxvi. 17, who forty years before tried to prevent Uzziah from pressing into the holy place), of the house of Zadok, answered him: Since they began to bring (N^7 for K^??) the heave-offerings into the house of the Lord, we have eaten and satisfied ourselves, and have left in plenty. The infin. absoll. infill ^£'1?iDK stand in animated speech instead of the first pers. plur. perf. From the same animation arises the construction of }i£nn~nx with "irrian; for " that which is left" signifies, and we have left this quantity here. — Ver.

11 f. Then the king commanded to prepare cells in the house of God for the storing of the provisions. Whether new cells were built, or cells already existing were prepared for this purpose, cannot be decided, since j^n may signify either. Into these cells they brought the novin, which here denotes the first-fruits (cf. ver. 5), the tithes, and the dedicated things, n^DX^ with fidelity, cf. xix. 9. BHvy, over them (the first-fruits, etc.) the Levite Cononiah was set as ruler (inspector), and his brother Shimei as second ruler (JWD). — Ver. 13. To them at their hand, i.e. as subordinate overseers, were given ten Levites, who are enumerated by name. Of the names, Jehiel and Mahath occur in xxix.

12 and 14. 1pp®2 is translated by the Vulg. ex imperio, better ex mandate* Hizkice. Azariah, the prince of the house of God, is the high priest mentioned in ver. 30. — To the fourteen Levites named in vers. 13 and 14 was committed the oversight and storing of the first-fruits, tithes, and consecrated gifts. Besides these, there were special officers appointed for the distribution of them. — In vers. 14-19 these are treated of; ver. 14 dealing with the distribution of the voluntary gifts of God, i.e. all which was offered to God of spontaneous impulse (Lev. xxiii. 38; Deut. xii. 17), to which the first-fruits and tithes did not belong, they being assessments prescribed by the law. Over the freewill offerings the Levite Kore, the doorkeeper towards the east (see on 1 Chron. ix. 18), was set. His duty was to give (distribute) " the heave-offerings of Jahve," i.e. that portion of the thank-offerings which properly belonged to Jahve, and which was transferred by Him to the priests (Lev. vii. 14, xxxii. 10,

14 f.; Num. v. 9), and the u most holy/' i.e. that part of the sin and trespass offerings (Lev. vi. 10, 22, vii. 6) and of the oblations (Lev. ii. 3, 10) which was to be eaten by the priests in the holy place* — Ver. 15. At his hand (ftj TjrsW, ver. 13), i.e. under his superintendence, there were six Levites, enumerated by name, in the priests' cities, with fidelity, " to give to their brethren in their courses, as well to the great as to the small" (i.e. to the older and to the younger), sc. the portion of the gifts received which fell to each. By the brethren in their courses we are to understand not merely the Levites dwelling in the priests' cities, who on account of their youth or old age could not come into the temple, but also those who. at the time were not on duty, since the Levites' courses performed it by turns, only some courses being on duty in the temple, while the others were at home in the priests' cities. The object to 1TO, ver. 15, is not to be taken straightway from the objects mentioned with rin? in ver. 14. For the most holy gifts could not be sent to the priests' cities, but were consumed in the holy place, i.e. in the temple. Nor can we confine nn? to the Wvjl HtifU; for since the gifts of the people, laid up in the cells, consisted in first-fruits, tithes, and consecrated gifts (ver. 11), and special officers were appointed for the storing and distribution of them, the business of distribution could not consist merely in the giving out of freewill offerings, but must have extended to all the offerings of the people. When, therefore, it is said of the Levite Kore, in ver. 14, that he was appointed over the freewill offerings, to distribute the heave-offerings and the most holy, only his chief function is there mentioned, and the functions of the officials associated with and subordinated to him in the priests' cities are not to be confined to that. The object to nriP, ver. 15, is consequently to be determined by the whole context, and the arrangements which are assumed as known from the law; i.e. we must embrace under that word the distribution of the first-fruits, tithes, and consecrated gifts, of which the Levites in the priests' cities were to receive their portion according to the law. — In ver. 16, the nippnon DrrriK of ver. 15 is more closely defined by an exception: " Besides their catalogue of the men (i.e. exclusive of those of the male sex catalogued by them) from three years old and upward, namely, of all those who came into the house of Jahve to the daily portion, for their service in their offices according to their courses." toi\3 DV ini signifies, in this connection, the portion of the holy gifts coming to them for every day; cf. Neb. xi. 23. The meaning of the verse is: From those dwelling in the priests' cities were excluded those who had come to perform service in the temple; and, indeed, not merely those performing the service, but also their male children, who were catalogued along with them if they were three years old and upward. Thence it is clear that those entering upon their service took their sons with them when they were three years old. These children ate in the place of the sanctuary of the portion coming to their parents. — Ver. 17 contains a parenthetic remark as to the catalogues. HK1, as nota accus., serves here to emphasize the statement which is added as an elucidation (cf. Ew. § 277, d): " But concerning the catalogue of the priests, it was (taken, prepared) according to the fathers'-houses; and the Levites, they were from twenty years old and upwards in their offices in their courses." All the duties were discharged by several courses. On the age fixed on, see 1 Chron. xxiii. 27. — Ver. 18. The connection and interpretation of this verse is doubtful. If we take \&WT\m as a continuation of '^[?™~n^:, ver. 17? it gives us no suitable sense. The addition, u and also to every priest and Levite was a larger or smaller portion given according to the catalogue" (Ramb., etc.), is arbitrary, and does not fully express the 2 before D5E"?3. Berth., on the other hand, correctly remarks, " After the parentheses in vers. 16 and 17, b>nW7i may be taken as a continuation of T\n? in ver. 16;" but the word itself he translates wrongly thus: The men were in the priests' cities, also to register their children, etc., disregarding the construction of BWin with 3. — From ver. 19, where the same construction recurs, we learn how to interpret 'LD"?^n feWWi: the catalogue = those registered in (of) all their children. According to this view, brvnrAl corresponds to the DiTnK?, ver. 15: to give to their brethren,... and to the registered of all their children, their wives, and their sons and daughters, viz. to the whole multitude (sc. of the wives, sons, and daughters), i.e. as many of them as there were. This interpretation of the?njj~?3? seems simpler than with Schmidt and Ramb. to understand /\}\> to denote the corporation of priests. There was therefore no one forgotten or overlooked; "for according to their fidelity (ver. 15) did they show themselves holy in regard to the holy," i.e. they acted in a holy manner with the holy gifts, distributed them disinterestedly and impartially to all who had any claim to them. — Ver. 19. And for the sons of Aaron, the priests, in the field of the districts of their cities (cf. Lev. xxv. 34; Num. xxxv. 5), in each city were men (appointed) famous (niE^'l *3j33 "IKW, as in xxviii. 15; see on 1 Chron. xii. 31), to give portions to each male among the priests, and to all that were registered among the Levites. As for the inhabitants of the priests' cities (ver. 15), so also for the priests and Levites dwelling in the pasture grounds of the priests' cities, were special officers appointed to distribute the priestly revenues.

Vers. 20, 21. The conclusion of this account. Thus did Hezekiah in all Judah, and wrought in general that which was good and right and ADSn before the Lord his God; and in every work that he commenced for the service of the house of God, and for the law and the commandment (i.e. for the restoration of the law and its commands), to seek his God, he did it with all his heart, and prospered.

Chap, xxxii. Sennacherib 's campaign against Judah and Israel: HezehiaKs sickness, the remainder of his reign, and his death. Cf. 2 Kings xviii. 13— xx. 21, and Isa. xxxvi.-xxxix. — Vers. 1-13. Sennacherib's campaign against Judah and Jerusalem, and the annihilation of his whole army by the angel of the Lord. In 2 Kings xviii. and xix., and Isa. xxxvi. and xxxvii., we have two minute parallel accounts of this war, which threatened the existence of the kingdom of Judah, in both of which the course of this attack by the Assyrian world-power upon the kingdom of God is circumstantially narrated. The author of the Chronicle gives only a short narrative of the main events of the struggle; but, notwithstanding its brevity, supplies us with several not unessential additions to these detailed accounts. After stating that Sennacherib invaded Judah with the design of conquering the kingdom for himself (ver. 1), the author of the Chronicle describes the preparations which Hezekiah made for the defence of the capital in case it should be besieged (vers. 2-8). Then we have an account of Sennacherib's attempts to get Jerusalem into his power, by sending his generals, who sought to induce the people to submit by boastful speeches, and by writing threatening letters to Hezekiah (vers. 9-19); and, finally, of Hezekiah's prayer to God for help, and the answer to his pra}-er — the wonderful annihilation of the Assyrian army (vers. 20-23). The purpose of the chronicler in narrating these events was a didactic one: he wishes to show how God the Lord helped the pious King Hezekiah in this danger to his kingdom, and humbled the presumption of Sennacherib confiding in the might of his powerful army. For this purpose, a brief rhetorical summary of the main events of the struggle and its issues was sufficient. As to the facts, see the commentary on 2 Kings xviii. f. and Isa. xxxvi. f.

Ver. 1. The didactic and rhetorical character of the narrative is manifest in the very form of the introductory statement. Instead of the chronological statement of 2 Kings xviii. 13, we find the loose formula of connection: After these events and this fidelity (cf. xxxi. 20), Sennacherib came (N2) and entered into Judah (n"W2 ^nS)? aQd besieged the fenced cities, and thought (ISH'V) to break (conquer) them for himself. He had already taken a number of them, and had advanced as far as Lachish in the south-west of Judah, when he made the attempt to get Jerusalem into his power; cf. 2 Kings xviii. 13 f.

Vers. 2-8. Preparations of Hezekiah for the strengthening and defending of Jerusalem. — We find an account of this neither in 2 Kings xviii. nor in Isa. xxxvi.; but the fact is confirmed both by Isa. xxii. 8-11, and by the remark 2 Kings xx. 20 (cf. ver. 30 of our chapter). — Ver. 2 ff. When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib advanced, and his face was to war against Jerusalem, i.e, that he purposed to capture Jerusalem, he consulted with his princes and his valiant men to cover the waters of the springs which were outside the city; and they helped him, brought much people together, and covered all the springs, and the brook which ran through the midst of the land. &rjD does not denote to obstruct, but only to hide by covering and conducting the water into subterranean channels. The brook which flowed through the midst of the land is the Gihon, which was formed by the waters flowing from the springs, and was dried up by these springs being covered and the water diverted. For further information, see on ver. 30. The object of this measure is stated in the words which follow: Why should the kings of Assyria come and find much water 1 i.e., why should we provide them with much water, when they advance against the city and besiege it? The plural, kings of Assyria, is rhetorical, as in xxviii. 16. — Ver. 5. The fortification of Jerusalem. RjnfP, he showed himself strong, courageous, as in xv. 8, xxiii. 1. And he built the whole wall which was broken, i.e. he strengthened it by building up the breaches and defective places; cf. Isa. xxii. 9 f. The words rtTODiTTJI?Vl\ are obscure, since the translation

" he mounted on the towers" has no meaning. But if?W be taken as a Hiph., " he caused to ascend upon the towers," the object is wanting; and if we supply walls, it is arbitrary, for wre might just as well suppose it to be machines which he caused to be carried to the top of the towers for defence against the enemy (xxvi. 15). The LXX. have wholly omitted the words, and the translation of the Vulg., et exstruxit turres desuper, appears to be only a guess, but is yet perhaps correct, and presupposes the reading HiP^OO \}yV?JM, u and brought up upon it towers," in favour of wThich Ewald also decides. This conjecture is in any case simpler than Bertheau's, that?]} PJTl is a false transcription of Jj?\?JT! - " he built the whole wall, and towers upon it, and outside was the other wall," and is therefore to be preferred to it. The " other wall " enclosed the lower city (Acra). This, too, was not first built by Hezekiah; he only fortified it anewr, for Isa. xxii. 11 already speaks of two walls, between which a body of water had been introduced: see on ver. 30. He fortified also the Millo of the city of David (see on 1 Chron. xi. 8), and supplied the fortifications with weapons (n?^, a weapon of defence; see on Joel ii. 8) in multitude, and with shields; cf. xxvi. 14. — Ver. 6. And, moreover, he set captains of wTar over the people, i.e. the populace of Jerusalem, assembled them in the open space at the city gate (wrhich gate is not stated; cf. Neh. viii. 1, 16), and addressed them in encouraging wrords; cf. xxx. 22. On ver. 7«, cf. xx. 15, Deut. xxxi. 6, etc. "For with us is more than with him." 3"}, quite general, the closer definition following in ver. 8: " With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is Jahve, our God, to help us." An arm of flesh = frail human power; cf. Isa. xxi. 3: their (the Egyptians') horses are flesh, not spirit; Jer. xvii. 5, Ps. lvi. 5. " And the people leaned themselves on (i.e. trusted in) the w7ords of Hezekiah." These statements are not inconsistent with the account in 2 Kings xviii. 14-16, that Hezekiah began to negotiate writh the Assyrian king Sennacherib when he had becmn to take the fenced cities of the land unto Lachish, promised to pay him tribute, and actually paid the sum demanded, employing for that purpose even the sheet gold on the temple doors. These negotiations are passed over, not only in our narrative, but also in Isa. xxxvi., because they had no influence upon the after course and the issue of the war. Sennacherib was not induced to withdraw by the payment of the sum demanded, and soon after the receipt of it he sent a detach- mcnt from Lachish against Jerusalem, to summon the city to surrender. The fortification of Jerusalem which the Chronicle records began before these negotiations, and was continued while they were in progress.

Vers. 9-19. The advance of an Assyrian army against Jerusalem, and the attempts of Sennacherib's generals to induce the population of the capital to submit by persuasive and threatening speeches, are very briefly narrated, in comparison with 2 Kings xviii. 17-36. In ver. 9, neither the names of the Assyrian generals, nor the names of Hezekiah's ambassadors with whom they treated, are given; nor is the place where the negotiation was carried on mentioned. **]?^j ms servants, Sennacherib's generals. 'j?~?V tRty while he himself lay near (or against) Lachish, and all the army of his kingdom with him. inp^DD, his dominion, i.e. army of his kingdom; cf. Jer. xxxiv. 1. — Ver. 10 ff. Only the main ideas contained in the speech of these generals are reported; in vers. 10-12 we have the attempt to shake the trust of the people in Hezekiah and in God (Kings, vers. 19-22). WZW*) is a continuation of the question, In what do ye trust, and why sit ye in the distress, in Jerusalem? IV BQ as in 2 Kings xviii. 32: Hezekiah seduces you, to give you over to death by hunger and thirst. This thought is much more coarsely expressed in 2 Kings xviii. 27. — On ver. 12, cf. 2 Kings xviii. 22: inN n^Tft is the one altar of burnt-offering in the temple. — Ver. 13 f. The description of Sennacherib's all-conquering power: cf. 2 Kings xviii. 35; Isa. xxxvi. 20, and xxxvii. 11-13. " Who is there among all the gods of these peoples, whom my fathers utterly destroyed, who could have delivered his people out of my hand, that your God should save you? " The idea is, that since the gods of the other peoples, which were mightier than your God, have not been able to save their peoples, how should your God be in a position to rescue you from my power? This idea is again repeated in ver. 15, as a foundation for the exhortation not to let themselves be deceived and misled by Hezekiah, and not to believe his words, and that in an assertative form: " for not one god of any nation or kingdom was able to deliver his people,... much less then (*3 *!*?) your gods: they will not save you;" and this is done in order to emphasize strongly the blasphemy of the Assyrian generals against the Almighty God of Israel. To communicate more of these blasphemous speeches would in the chronicler's view be useless, and he therefore only remarks, in ver. 16, "And yet more spake his (Sennacherib's) servants against God Jahve, and against His servant Hezekiah;" and then, in ver. 17, that Sennacherib also wrote a letter of similar purport, and (ver. 18) that his servants called with a loud voice in the Jews' speech to the people of Jerusalem upon the wall, to throw them into fear and terrify them, that they might take the city. What they called to the people is not stated, but by the infinit. Bjrn?1) DfcOv it is hinted, and thence we may gather that it was to the same effect as the blasphemous speeches above quoted (E^J, inf. Pi., as in Neh. vi. 19). — On comparing 2 Kings xviii. and xix., it is clear that Sennacherib only sent the letter to Hezekiah after his general Rabshakeh had informed him of the fruitlessness of his efforts to induce the people of Jerusalem to submit by speeches, and the news of the advance of the Cushite king Tirhakah had arrived; while the calling aloud in the Jews' language to the people standing on the wall, on the part of his generals, took place in the first negotiation with the ambassadors of Hezekiah. The author of the Chronicle has arranged his narrative rhetorically, so as to make the various events form a climax: first, the speeches of the servants of Sennacherib; then the king's letter to Hezekiah to induce him and his counsellors to submit; and finally, the attempt to terrify the people in language intelligible to them. The conclusion is the statement, ver. 19: "They spake of the God of Jerusalem as of the gods of the peoples of the earth, the work of the hands of man; " cf. 2 Kings xix. 18.

Vers. 20-23. Prayer of King Hezekiah and of the prophet Isaiah for the help of the Lord. — Ver. 20. The main contents of Hezekiah's prayer are communicated in 2 Kings xix. 14-19 and Isa. xxx vii. 15—19. There it is not expressly said that Isaiah also prayed, but it may be inferred from the statement in 2 Kings xix. 2 ff. and Isa. xxxvii. 2 ff. that Hezekiah sent a deputation to the prophet with the request that he would pray for the people. In answer Isaiah promised the ambassadors deliverance, as the word of the Lord. riKT?V7 on account of this, i.e. on account of the contempt shown for the God of Israel, which was emphatically dwelt upon both in the prayer of Hezekiah (2 Kings xix. 16) and in the word of Isaiah, ver. 22 ff. — Ver. 21. The deliverance: cf. 2 Kings xix. 35 ff.; Isa. xxxvii. 36 ff. The number of Assyrians smitten by the angel of the Lord is not stated, as it was not of importance, the main fact being that the whole Assyrian host was annihilated, so that Sennacherib had to return with disgrace into his own land. This is what is signified by the rhetorical phrase: The angel of Jahve destroyed all the valiant warriors, and the leaders and princes of the king of Assyria, and he returned with shame of face (cf. Ezra ix. 7; Ps. xliv. 16) to nis land, where his sons slew him in the temple. In regard to the facts, see on 2 Kings xix. 37 and Isa. xxxvii. 38. The Keth. l&WD is an orthographical error for ^TP, a contraction of IP and **W from KVj a passive formation with intransitive signification: some of those who went forth from his own bowels, i.e. some of his sons; cf. the similar formation *Tr^j 1 Chron. xx. 4. — Ver 22. Conclusion of this event. So the Lord helped, etc., fen??, and out of the hand of all, sc. his enemies; but we need not on that account, with some manuscripts, bring v:rx into the text. DJl!25j and protected them round about. 7HJ, to lead, guide, with the additional idea of care and protection (Ps. xxxi. 4; Isa. xlix. 10, li. 18); and consequently here, protect, defend. There is therefore no need of the conjecture on? rujl, which Berth, holds to be the original reading, without considering that, though MBD najl is a current phrase with the chronicler (cf. xiv. 6, xv. 15, xx. 30; 1 Chron. xxii. 18), the supposition that these words became 'DD apnT) by an orthographical error is not at all probable. — Ver. 23. Many brought gifts to the Lord to Jerusalem, and presents to King Hezekiah. DW is not to be restricted to Israelites, but probably denotes chiefly neighbouring peoples, who by the destruction of the Assyrian army were also freed from this dreaded enemy. They, too, might feel impelled to show their reverence for the God of Israel, who had so wonderfully delivered His people by their gifts.

Vers. 24-26. Hezcldatis sickness and recovery; his pride and his humiliation. — Ver. 24. As to the sickness of Hezekiah, and the miraculous sign by which the prophet Isaiah assured him of recovery, see the account in 2 Kings xx. 1—11 and Isa. xxxviii. The Chronicle has only given us hints on this matter. IBN8! and I0J refer to the same subject — God. Hezekiah prayed, and in consequence of his prayer God spake to him, sc. by the mouth of the prophet, and gave him a miraculous sign. — Ver. 25. 'c But Hezekiah rendered not acr ording to the benefit unto him, for his heart was proud." In his sickness he had promised to walk in humility all his days (Isa. xxxviii. 15): yet he became proud after his recovery; and his pride showed itself especially in his showing all his treasures to the Babylonian embassy, in idle trust in them and in the resources at his command (cf. 2 Kings xx. 12—15; Isa. xxxix. 1-4). "And there was wrath upon him, and upon Judah and Jerusalem," which participated in the king's sentiments (cf. xix. 10; 1 Chron. xxvii. 24). Isaiah proclaimed this wrath to him in the prophecy that all the treasures of the king would be carried away to Babylon, and that some of his sons should become courtiers of the king of Babylon (2 Kings xx. 16-18; Isa. xxxix. 5-7), to which we should perhaps also reckon the threatening prophecy in Mic. iii. 12. — Ver. 26. Then Hezekiah humbled himself in his pride, and the wrath came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah (cf. Isa. xxxix. 8). The threatened judgment was postponed because of this humiliation, and broke over the royal house and the whole kingdom only at a later time in the Chaldean invasion.

Vers. 27-33. Hezekialis riches; concluding estimate of his reign; his death and burial. — Ver. 27. Like Jehoshaphat (xvii. 5, xviii. 1), Solomon (i. 12), and David (1 Chron. xxix. 28), Hezekiah attained to riches and glory, and made unto himself treasurechambers for silver, gold, precious stones, and spices, shields, and all manner of splendid furniture. The D'SJD are named instead of weapons in general. The collection of them brings to recollection the 1v3 JV3 (2 Kings xx. 13 and Isa. xxxix. 2). — Ver. 28. Storehouses also (magazines) for the agricultural produce, and stalls for all manner of cattle, and stalls for the herds, like David (1 Chron. xxvii. 25 ff.) and Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 10). rfcDD is a transposition of rriDiDD? storehouses, from DJ3? to heap up. " Cattle and cattle " = all kinds of cattle.. HVjKj synonymous with ni^N (ix. 5), stables or stalls for cattle. The word rihix, which occurs only here, must have the same signification, and be held to be a transposed form of that word. — Ver. 29. And cities (?) made (procured) he for himself. D^y cannot in this connection denote the usual cities; it must mean either watch-towers (from "liy, to watch) or dwelling-places for herds and cattle, since *vy, according to 2 Kings xvii. 9, is used of any enclosed place, from a watch-tower to a fenced city. &W"|, as in xxxi. 3, of possessions in herds. — Ver. 30. The same Hezekiah covered the upper outlet of the water Gihon, and brought it down westwards to the city of David, i.e. by a subterranean channel into the city of David (see on ver. 3). The form D"W"l is Piel D"}B^1; the Keri is the same con jug., only contracted into BX>*1, as B^ for

B>a^1, the 1 of the third person having amalgamated with the first radical, under the influence of the 1 consec. With the last clause in ver. 30 cf. xxxi. 21, 1 Chron. xxix. 23.— Ver. 31. " And so (i.e. accordingly) in the case of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon,... God left him." \2) does not denote attamen; it never has an adversative meaning. Bertheau rightly translates, " and accordingly," with the further remark, that by |31 the account of Hezekiah's treatment of the Babylonian ambassadors, which could not be reckoned among his fortunate deeds, is brought into harmony with the remark that he prospered in all his undertakings. It was permitted by God that Hezekiah should on this occasion be lifted up, and should commit an iniquity which could not but bring misfortune with it; not in order that He might plunge him into misfortune, but to try him, and to humble him (cf. ver. 26).— Ver. 32. DHDrj, pious deeds, as in vi. 42. 'fe* Jitq is the book of Isaiah's prophecies; see the Introduction, p. 30. — Ver. 33. Hezekiah was buried a on the height of the graves of the sons of David," perhaps because there was no longer room in the hereditary burying-place of the kings; so that for Hezekiah and the succeeding kings special graves had to be prepared in a higher place of the graves of the kings. " They did him honour in his death," by the burning of many spices, as we may conjecture (cf. xvi. 14, xxi. 19).

Vers. 1-20. The reign of Manas sell; cf. 2 Kings xxi. 1-18. — The characteristics of this king's reign, and of the idolatry which he again introduced, and increased in a measure surpassing all his predecessors (vers. 1-9), agrees almost verbally with 2 Kings xxi. 1-9. Here and there an expression is rhetorically generalized and intensified, e.g. by the plurals DvJft? and rint^x (ver. 3) instead of the sing, byz? and »T]&J>K (Kings), and Vja (ver. 6) instead of foa (see on xxviii. 3); by the addition of Pgbl to B>'n?1 gty and of the name the Vale of Hinnom, ver. 6 (see on Josh. xv. 18, *jj for tfjl); by heaping up words for the law and its commandments (ver. 8); and other small deviations, of which?DQ?DDH (ver. 7) instead of ni^KH ^D3 (Kings) is the most important. The word?£D? sculpture or statue, is derived from Deut. iv. 1G, but has perhaps been taken by the author of the

Chronicle from Ezek. viii. 3, where te? probably denotes the statue of Asherah. The form tiity for DJW (ver. 7) is not elsewhere met with. — At ver. 10, the account in the Chronicle diverges from that in 2 Kings. In 2 Kings xxi. 10-16 it is related how the Lord caused it to be proclaimed by the prophets, that in punishment of Manasseh's sins Jerusalem would be destroyed, and the people given into the power of their enemies, and how Manasseh filled Jerusalem with the shedding of innocent blood. Instead of this, in ver. 10 of the Chronicle it is only briefly said that the Lord spake to Manasseh and to his people, but they would not hearken; and then in vers. 11-17 it is narrated that Manasseh was led awray to Babylon by the king of Assyria's captains of the host; in his trouble turned to the Lord his God, and prayed; was thereupon brought by God back to Jerusalem; after his return, fortified Jerusalem with a new wall; set commanders over all the fenced cities of Judah: abolished the idolatry in the temple and the city, and restored the worship of Jahve. — Ver. 11. As Manasseh would not hear the words of the prophets, the Lord brought upon him the captains of the host of the king of Assyria. These " took him with hooks, and bound him with double chains of brass, and brought him to Babylon." D^rrini F?3^ signifies neither, they took him prisoner in thorns (hid in the thorns), nor in a place called Chochim (which is not elsewhere found), but they took him with hooks, nin denotes the hook or ring which was drawn through the gills of large fish when taken (Job xl. 26), and is synonymous with nn (2 Kings xix. 28; Ezek. xix. 4), a ring which was passed through the noses of wild beasts to subdue and lead them. The expression is figurative, as in the passages quoted from the prophets. Manasseh is represented as an unmanageable beast, which the Assyrian generals took and subdued by a ring in the nose. The figurative expression is explained by the succeeding clause: they bound him with double chains. E^ri^m are double fetters of brass, with which the feet of prisoners were bound (2 Sam. hi. 34; Judg. xvi. 21; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6, etc.).— Yer. 12. h TCTM = £ n?n nyni, xxviii. 22. In this his affliction he bowed himself before the Lord God of his fathers, and besought Him; and the Lord was entreated of him, and brought him again to Jerusalem, into his kingdom. The prayer which Manasseh prayed in his need was contained, according to ver. 18 f., in the histories of the kings of Israel, and in the sayings of the prophet Ilozai, but has not come down to our clay. The u prayer of Manasseh" given by the LXX. is an apocryphal production, composed in Greek; cf. my Introduction to the Old Testament, § 247. — Ver. 14. After his return, Manasseh took measures to secure his kingdom, and especially the capital, against hostile attacks. " He built an outer wall of the city of David westward towards Gihon in the valley, and in the direction of the fish-gate; and he surrounded the Ophel, and made it very high." The words nwn noin (without the article) point to the building of a new wall. But since it has been already recorded of Hezekiah, in xxxii. 5, that he built "the other wall without," all modern expositors, even Arnold in Herz.'s Realenc. xviii. S. 634, assume the identity of the two walls, and understand ]^} of the completion and heightening of that " other wall " of which it is said *W£> £^335, and which shut in Zion from the lower city to the north. In that case, of course, we must make the correction Hftinri. The words " westward towards Gihon in the valley, and '3 Nil?, in the direction to (towards) the fish-gate," are then to be taken as describing the course of this wall from its centre, first towards the west, and then towards the east. For the valley of Gihon lay, in all probability, outside of the western city gate, which occupied the place of the present Jaffa gate. But the fish-gate was, according to Neh. iii. 3, at the east end of this wall, at no great distance from the tower on the north-east corner. The valley (?ri3i\) is a hollow between the upper city (Zion) and the lower (Acfa), probably the beginning of the valley, which at its southeastern opening, between Zion and Moriah, is called Tyropoion in Josephus. The words, " he surrounded the Ophel," sc. with a wall, are not to be connected with the preceding clauses, as Berth, connects them, translating, u he carried the wall from the northeast corner farther to the south, and then round the Ophel;" for " between the north-east corner and the Ophel wall lay the whole east wall of the city, as far as to the south-east corner of the temple area, which yet cannot be regarded as a continuation of the wall to the Ophel wall" (Arnold, loc, cit.). Jotham had already built a great deal at the Ophel wall (xxvii. 3). Manasseh must therefore only have strengthened it, and increased its height. On the words '^ Dfc^ cf. xxxii. 6 and xvii. 2. — Vers. 15-17. And he also removed the idols and the statues from the house of the Lord, i.e. out of the two courts of the temple (ver. 5), and caused the idolatrous altars which he had built upon the temple hill and in Jerusalem to be cast forth from the city. In ver. 16, instead of the Keth. p^, he built (restored) the altar of Jahve, many manuscripts and ancient editions read p"»i, he prepared the altar of Jahve. This variation has perhaps originated in an orthographical error, and it is difficult to decide which reading is the original. The Vulg. translates \y restauravit. That Manasseh first removed the altar of Jahve from the court, and then restored it, as Ewald thinks, is not very probable; for in that case its removal would certainly have been mentioned in ver. 3 ff. Upon the altar thus restored Manasseh then offered thank-offerings and peace-offerings, and also commanded his subjects to worship Jahve the God of Israel. But the people still sacrificed on the high places, yet unto Jahve their God.